Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Theatres

Chris Bryant: How many theatres in England and Wales receive public subsidy.

Estelle Morris: Some 236 theatres receive public subsidy from Arts Council England. In addition, local authorities invest more than £220 million in the arts each year, some of which goes to theatres. The figures for Wales are a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend has no responsibility for Wales, I hope that she will visit the new millennium centre theatre in Cardiff soon. I believe that it holds the prospect of being one of best theatres in the land.
	I want to ask my right hon. Friend about west end theatre. She knows that it is one of Britain's greatest assets, especially for foreign tourists. Yet 46,856 seats in London's west end theatres do not receive a single penny of state subsidy simply because they are run in the commercial sector, despite the fact that many are listed buildings. Is that fair? Is not it time that the Labour Government discovered some new way, perhaps a third way, of helping?

Estelle Morris: I look forward to visiting the new millennium centre—I wish it well. It is nice to go to places for which one does not have responsibility now and again.
	I readily acknowledge the excellence, worldwide reputation and contribution to the nation's economy of west end theatres. That contribution is estimated at approximately £1.5 billion. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a genuine problem about publicly subsidising commercial theatres. However, I acknowledge theatres' problems and, earlier this year, the Secretary of State and I brought together all interested parties, including theatres, local authorities and our Department. We asked people to try to devise what might be a third way; we certainly hope that it will be a strategy. We look forward to the report, which we expect some time before Christmas.

Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister also appreciate that many important listed buildings provide wonderful productions throughout the country, not only in the west end? If the Minister and the Government are considering supporting great historic buildings in which theatres perform throughout the year, they should examine not only the specific problems of the listed theatres in London but of those throughout the country.

Estelle Morris: I readily accept that. Let us be clear: Ministers will not decide where the public funds go. Many buildings, including theatres that are listed and those that are not, are vital to their community and often need repair and refurbishment. It is a long haul because there are many theatres and not as much money to go round.
	Approximately half the money that is believed to be generated through theatres comes from the west end. Although I do not belittle or fail to understand the importance of theatres in their communities, there is something extra special about the London west end. If we witnessed its demise, everybody, no matter where our constituencies are based, would view that as a cause for sorrow. Let us hope that we are considering a question of not either/or but, over the years, both.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend referred to the role of local government in supporting local theatres. I know that she has visited the arts centre in the mechanics building in Burnley but not the theatre. Does she acknowledge that councils such as Burnley find it increasingly difficult to fund such arts centres and theatres and need more assistance from the Government, especially when local council budgets are being squeezed so tightly?

Estelle Morris: It may be that some local authorities find it difficult but many make it a priority. When they decide that the arts and culture are essential to their community, the money is found. I congratulate and thank local authorities that have prioritised those matters and urge those that have not to do so.

Gambling Bill

Simon Hughes: What assessment she has made of the level of protection that the Gambling Bill gives to (a) young people and (b) other vulnerable persons.

Tessa Jowell: The Gambling Bill, the Second Reading of which the House will debate later today, will provide significantly greater safeguards for children and vulnerable adults than the present law. The status quo is dangerous and unacceptable because the current law does not allow Government or the Gaming Board to regulate the many new technologies, such as video roulette machines, in betting shops or online gambling sites. Without the Bill, which has been strengthened by pre-legislative scrutiny, problem gambling is likely to increase. The safeguards will enable the regulator— the proposed new gambling commission—and the Government to keep the position firmly under control and to act swiftly to cut back the supply of gambling opportunities, should that prove necessary.

Simon Hughes: I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that the best estimate is that 300,000 people are defined as problem gamblers. During the scrutiny process, she told the Committee that, if the Bill produced more problem gamblers, it would have failed. Does she maintain the view that the 10 per cent. of the Bill that is controversial will not add one more problem gambler to the number? Given that no one else shares that view, will she reconsider the basis of her opinion?

Tessa Jowell: Maintaining the current low level of problem gambling is one of the Bill's objectives and protection from harm is a theme that runs all the way through the Bill. What has been lost in recent controversy about the Bill is the sheer scale of the gambling commission's power to wind back any liberalisation of the gambling regime in the event of harm being established. Moreover, through the gambling survey, we shall have clear figures providing a baseline on which we can judge future trends. The success of—and, indeed, continued access to—gambling technologies will be judged on their ability to provide entertainment rather than generating problem gambling.
	I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that, given more gambling opportunities, there will not be a single extra problem gambler. It would be ridiculous to say that. People are at risk now from gambling on the internet and from unregulated offshore sites. But—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Other Members may wish to ask questions.

Frank Doran: Does the Secretary of State accept that the greatest protection for gambling addicts is related to the number of casinos? I support the broad aims of the Bill, but I am worried about the potential for increase.
	Let me give an example from my constituency. Two casinos serve north-east Scotland and, so far, Aberdeen city council has had to deal with six applications for outline planning permission for future casinos. I am particularly worried about the local authorities that will be involved in the licensing. I want to ensure that they are protected properly, because at present they are squeezed between protecting the interests of local electors and the enormous cost of appeals. I want a robust licensing system. Can the Secretary of State reassure me?

Tessa Jowell: Let me make three quick points. In countries such as Australia, where problem gambling has become a major issue, the proliferation of machines rather than casinos has been responsible. We have learnt from that lesson. We also see the need for a tough regulator who can act to prevent harm. Finally, local authorities will have a clearly defined power to decide that they do not want any casinos in their areas. It will be effective for three years, and renewable thereafter.

Julie Kirkbride: Can the Secretary of State explain why the gaming machines to be found in chip shops, for instance, which offer a £5 maximum payout for a 10p stake, are so corrupting to children? What evidence has she? Can she also explain why, given that local authorities already have power to ban such machines, they have not done so?

Tessa Jowell: I welcome the hon. Lady's newly discovered interest in gambling, but we are pursuing the Bill's key objective, which is to protect children from gambling and, in particular, from the risks of ambient gambling—chancing on a machine when they happen to be standing around doing something else. We intend to remove those risks from children, which is why the 6,000 entirely unregulated machines in chip shops, minicab offices and the like are to be withdrawn.

Bill Olner: I welcome much of the Bill, but I find it offensive that large American companies will be able to buy planning permission for casinos from local authorities. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that will be dealt with in Committee, and will not happen?

Tessa Jowell: American companies are already considerable investors in the United Kingdom economy. We will accept American investment, Japanese investment and Australian investment, but we will subject it to a British regulatory regime that is right for the people of this country and acceptable to them.

Malcolm Moss: All the experts, including the Secretary of State's own Ministers, agree that accessibility to gambling opportunities is the key factor contributing to a rise in problem gambling. How then can the Secretary of State claim to be increasing protection for children and the vulnerable when greater access is to be encouraged by withdrawing the membership rules, allowing ambient access to unlimited-prize category A gaming machines for the first time ever in this country, and when regional planning policy, run through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, positively skews the location of the new regional casinos towards the greatest density of population in our city centres?

Tessa Jowell: To deal with the third point first, that is not necessarily the case because the gambling commission may well decide to issue advice to local authorities by which they will be bound about the criteria that should be applied when considering the location of the very large casinos. But that is a perfectly reasonable question.
	With regard to getting rid of membership rules, modern gambling is not about membership of gentlemen's clubs. People gamble as a leisure pursuit in ever increasing numbers, so we seek to strike a proper boundary between the legitimate right of adults to choose to spend their leisure time as they wish within the law, while at the same time regulating for human frailty, protecting the vulnerable, and, in particular, protecting children from the harm that gambling can create.

David Winnick: I recognise that perhaps as much as 90 per cent. of the Bill can be supported, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there are two anxieties—that there is no maximum number of casinos and, that that, inevitably, along with other clauses in the Bill, is bound to increase gambling? Why should we be involved in doing so, when already too many vulnerable people are in gambling debt and that can only increase? There is a great deal to be said for the Cabinet and my right hon. Friend reconsidering the controversial aspects of the measure and then coming back to the House. As it stands, some of us will find it impossible to vote for it at 10 o'clock.

Tessa Jowell: I respect my hon. Friend's views. I know that gambling is an issue that will divide the House on other than the normal party political lines and I respect the views of those who feel that gambling is quite simply wrong. But in relation to the very large casinos that have been the subject of much of the controversy and publicity in the last week or so, the estimate—it is an industry estimate, not a Government one—is that there are likely to be between 20 and 40. I will not now but later set out in detail the tough regulatory regime, a combination of the role of the gambling commission and the planning regime, that will determine whether they develop in any part of the country at all.
	Gambling in this country is lawful and it is increasing. Millions of people choose to gamble as a leisure activity. The urgent need is for regulation to ensure that we do not see an increase in problem gambling and that people are not exploited.

Darts

Bob Russell: What progress has been made in making darts an officially recognised sport.

Richard Caborn: Decisions as to whether particular activities and pastimes should be recognised as sports for official and funding purposes are made by unanimous agreement between the sports councils. I understand that the sports councils are unlikely to reach a consensus on the recognition of darts as a sport in the foreseeable future.

Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that millions of people who play darts regard it as a sport, as do local and national newspapers and television? Is it not time that the sports bodies in this country recognised darts as a sport, as millions of people believe it to be, and stopped behaving in an elitist—[Hon. Members: "Snobbish."]—and snobbish way?

Richard Caborn: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this, but I refer him again to the Sports Council, which is certainly not elitist and does an extremely good job, as he knows. The definition goes back to the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. I ask him to reflect on whether darts fits into the category of "physical training and recreation". The sports bodies say no, and that was confirmed in a review in 1997, and again by UK Sport in 2000, as he has been told on previous occasions.

Public Service Broadcasting

Nick Harvey: If she will make a statement on the recently published Ofcom review of public service broadcasting, with specific reference to its implications for regional television.

Estelle Morris: The second phase of Ofcom's public service television review, published on 30 September, represents an important contribution to the debate about the future of public service broadcasting. All Ofcom's proposals, including those relating to regional television in England, are currently out to consultation, following which Ofcom will publish its final recommendations in due course.

Nick Harvey: What is the Government's vision for the future of ITV? Does the Minister understand the concern of the people working in regional ITV and watching it about Ofcom's proposal to reduce the obligations and its warning that even that reduced level may not be sustainable? Does she want ITV to continue into the longer term as a regional broadcaster? Given that, after digital switchover, the licence will not have its previous value, what system of sticks and carrots could she bring to bear to ensure that ITV remains a regional broadcaster?

Estelle Morris: The vision is one that continues ITV's current regional obligations. Members of Parliament will well know the importance of regional broadcasting as a means of communicating, at least from this place, to people elsewhere. After digital switchover, whenever it arrives, things will change, and I see the paper that Ofcom has published very much as an opportunity to discuss important issues about what regional programming might look like in the future. It is not for Government to comment now. The consultation is still open, and Ofcom will reflect on it and let us know its decision. There is a statutory framework that means that regional programming obligations will continue, but how they are manifested is not set in stone. We must keep our minds open about what changes may be necessary in the light of technological advances.

Jim Knight: The creative industries are among the most important industries in the south-west, working closely with higher education establishments in places such as Plymouth, Bristol and Bournemouth. Those establishments in turn have a strong and important relationship with regional broadcasters, which help to sustain them as institutions. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she will be robust with Ofcom to ensure that regional TV production is retained, in order to support the important creative industries in my region?

Estelle Morris: I acknowledge the importance of the creative industries as a sector that is growing at twice the rate of any other industrial sector in our country, so of course we must ensure that we train for it and establish links from universities into its work. I do not foresee a future with no regional programming obligations on either ITV or the BBC, and I believe that the Ofcom report made that clear, but we are in a period of change, and change brings uncertainty. With digital switchover on the horizon, it would be silly to bury our head in the sand and think that those regional obligations could continue in exactly their current form, but I am sure that Ofcom will bear in mind the important and valuable point that my hon. Friend makes.

Tim Boswell: Does the Minister accept that regional television, including regional news, is as clear a case as can be of public service broadcasting, as it would simply not be provided for profit, and is not Ofcom therefore entirely right to point out that the old matching inducement of cheap analogue spectrum to finance it is of diminishing value? Will she be prepared to bite the bullet and at least not rule out in advance any sensible and imaginative means of finding the resources to fund this essential local programming when, before very long, it becomes necessary?

Estelle Morris: I agreed with the first two thirds of the hon. Gentleman's question, but it is too early to go beyond the consultation on the Ofcom document. It would be unwise, while that consultation continues, to say what the Government's plans are. The nature of the consultation is to listen. Let there be no misunderstanding: the proposal in the document concerned a reduction from three hours to one and a half affecting non-news items at off-peak hours only. He did not mention it, but I share his great concern that regional news should be covered at a regional level. That is an important element of a strong democracy, with strong accountability. Let me put it on the record that Ofcom has not suggested any change on that.

Ian Lucas: Is the Minister aware of real concern in Wales about the possible loss of an independent terrestrial broadcaster, and is she aware in particular of the important role of independent TV news? Will she assure us that she will not countenance a situation in which the BBC operates the only regional TV news network in Wales?

Estelle Morris: I take my hon. Friend's point; the BBC has an important part to play in regional broadcasting, but there is an issue about making sure that more than one organisation has that obligation. I will reflect on his comments and make sure that they are fed back as part of the consultation process.

Simon Thomas: Further to that answer, does the Minister agree that ITV in the Welsh context is not just a regional broadcaster but the national English-language broadcaster? There is more to culture and nation than simply news: in fact, most people do not listen to the news but to drama and light entertainment, which also help to inform their views about democracy. From that perspective, is it not vital that we retain a commercial interest and a commercial station broadcasting in Wales, and in the regions of England?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right in some ways. In the regions of England, it probably is the news that is most important and of most interest. The position in the other countries is different from that in England, and Ofcom recognised that in its consultation document and is giving the point special attention. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that regional television in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales is important linguistically and culturally, and I am pleased that that has been reflected in the consultation document.

Olympic Games

Andrew Love: If she will make a statement on progress with the 2012 Olympic bid.

Tessa Jowell: The London 2012 Olympic bid is making excellent progress and was given a huge boost by the presence of more than 10,000 British sports fans at the Athens games in August, along with exceptional support from the Prime Minister, the Sports Minister, Ken Livingstone, Lord Coe and myself. The candidate file for the bid will be presented to the International Olympic Committee on 15 November, and we have already begun planning for the crucial IOC evaluation commission visit, which will take place from 16 to 19 February next year.

Andrew Love: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent poll showing 70 per cent. support for the Olympic bid. We all also welcome the fact that 200,000 people turned out in London to welcome home our Olympic athletes.
	All the evidence from both Athens and Sydney is that we will need a large number of volunteers to make the Olympics successful. In Sydney, for example, 50,000 volunteers were needed, and I suspect that that figure will translate to 60,000 for London. What efforts are my right hon. Friend and the bid partners making to ensure we get that level of support and have enough volunteers when the Olympics come here?

Tessa Jowell: The bid team is already beginning work on recruiting volunteers, and we estimate that 70,000 to 80,000, from all over the country, are likely to be needed. What is important about our bid, as my hon. Friend made clear, is that support in London is beginning to take off, and we have to ensure that that support is echoed all around the country. The members of the International Olympic Committee will need to be confident that they are awarding the games to a city in a country that really wants them. The message we want to send out loud and clear is that Britain really wants the Olympics, and London really wants the Olympics.

Mark Field: As a fellow London Member, does the Secretary of State regard it as acceptable that the Mayor of London has signed a blank cheque on behalf of all Londoners for the overrun costs of the Olympic games? Is this in fact a London or a national Olympic games?

Tessa Jowell: It is the London Olympics in the United Kingdom. We have always been absolutely clear about that, and that is the basis on which Opposition parties have supported the games. It simply is not true to say that the Mayor of London has signed a blank cheque. He has made very clear the level of council tax that Londoners will pay—

Mark Field: indicated dissent.

Tessa Jowell: That, frankly, is the old Tory trick. The Mayor has set out the position absolutely clearly— 38p a week. If the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) wants to stand up for the bid in London, he will stop playing political games with it.

Pete Wishart: On the poll that the Secretary of State referred to, she will have noted that support in Scotland for a London Olympics is significantly lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are some good reasons for that. She must explain clearly to those in Scotland what is in this for them. What would she say to the Scottish people who remain concerned that the use of lottery funds should not mean that our charities, grass-roots sports and good causes are raided to pay for a London Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: London, along with all the other parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, will benefit from the Olympic games. Support has not been as high as we would have liked, but there is an opportunity for every Member who represents a Scottish constituency, or who goes to Scotland, to talk up the benefit of the bid, not only for London, but for the whole UK.

Don Foster: May I take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic bid as something that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom? The Secretary of State will be aware that the current plans require a great deal of the funding for the bid, if successful, to come from the Olympic lottery that is to be introduced. Is she aware that the regulatory impact assessment for the Gambling Bill shows that, if that Bill goes ahead, the receipts to the Olympic lottery will be cut, possibly by as much as £27 million a year, which is more than £100 million over five years? How does she plan to plug that gap?

Tessa Jowell: We will discuss the detail of the Gambling Bill later. Suffice it to say that maintaining the strength of the lottery was an important consideration in judging the legislative proposals in that Bill—hence our rejection of Sir Alan Budd's recommendations that side betting on the lottery be allowed or that there be a single regulator.

Hugh Robertson: Nobody who saw the Athens Olympics could doubt the benefits that hosting the games brings to any city. However, given that the Sydney games overspent by £1.3 billion and that Athens has overspent by nearly £3 billion to date, will the Secretary of State confirm that any overspend on the London bid will be split between the lottery and London council tax payers? The cost to both could be considerable.

Tessa Jowell: Neither the Sydney games nor the Athens games had the degree of budgetary detail established at the point at which we are now. We have substantial contingency in the estimated call on the public finances, through both council tax and the lottery, and we are confident that a London games will be run within the budgetary limits that will be set out in the candidate file.

Digital Television

Adrian Sanders: If she will make a statement on the date for the switch-off of analogue television transmission.

Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on digital switchover.

Estelle Morris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a statement in July 2004 on the progress being made towards digital switchover. She noted that although broadcasters had not reached a full consensus, some had suggested that 2012 might be the most appropriate date for the completion of switchover. However, a final decision on the timetable has not yet been taken.

Adrian Sanders: What is the Government's response to pensioners in my constituency who get a free TV licence but who will not be able to receive any television pictures when the digital switchover takes place? Will they get a bit extra in their pensions to compensate?

Estelle Morris: I apologise if I have not quite understood the hon. Gentleman's question, but one of the requirements for switchover is that anybody who receives terrestrial television now will be able to receive digital television. On helping vulnerable groups, he referred to elderly pensioners in his constituency, but as he knows, we have asked that a committee be set up to advise us on that. Consideration of the help that vulnerable groups may need will be one of the factors influencing our decision about when switchover will take place.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister may be aware that, in many parts of my constituency, we do not have an adequate analogue service and few people believe that that situation will improve come the digital switchover. There is serious concern in the northern isles that, come the digital switchover, we will again be left behind. Will she and her colleagues therefore give some consideration to the proposals from the independent consumer expert group that at least 99.5 per cent. of the population in each region, and not just in the UK as a whole, should be able to receive a digital signal at the point of switchover?

Estelle Morris: I shall certainly consider the recommendations of any group that is looking into this matter, because I accept that it is important. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) both have constituencies in which reception of the analogue signal is not great and digital reception is even worse. That situation will remain until switchover. The dilemma of the hon. Gentleman's constituents is that, unless we can get more spectrum, we will not be able to aid them. This is an important switchover to make, but it is absolutely right that we do not make it until we are in receipt of all the information, and that we do it in an orderly and proper way.

David Cairns: As a Member from a constituency that also has large areas without an analogue signal, I hope that we do not delay the matter indefinitely, as no resources are being spent on upgrading the analogue signal in advance of digital switchover. As well as the geographical criteria, there is an affordability criterion, which the Government recognise in providing free television licences for over-75s. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend will not want to blight the market at this stage, but will she at least acknowledge that the Government understand that some older and poorer people may need assistance in respect of the set-top box, or whatever the technology is by 2012, to help them to make the digital switchover?

Estelle Morris: Of course I accept that there is an issue, otherwise the Government would not have acted as they have done to introduce free television licences for vulnerable groups. That is exactly why we have set up Ofcom's independent consumer panel to look at how the whole of digital switchover may affect vulnerable groups. I am not in a position to say more than that, merely because we are awaiting the report of that panel, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that the matter is on our mind—although that is not a commitment as to exactly what we will do.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister will be aware that ITV3 launches tonight on digital terrestrial television—that is, freeview—but is she aware that the launch of that new channel will cause problems because of the lack of bandwidth on freeview? Is she aware that, even at present, the system used for compressing technology and television on freeview is already out of date? She said that 2012 might be the time for digital switchover. Will she consider before the next election whether we will use the current system of digital terrestrial television or a system that can increase the number of channels threefold or fourfold?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman's question is incredibly technical, and I would not claim to match his knowledge on that point. The key issue is that we need more spectrum. Unless we get more spectrum, nothing will change, and we will neither help the constituents of the hon. Members for Torbay and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to receive the analogue signal nor enable the 25 per cent. who cannot currently receive digital switchover to do so. That is exactly why the Government have set up bodies, organisations, panels and consumer and broadcast interest groups to make recommendations and advise us on the technicalities. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will take all those matters into account before finally announcing the date of switchover.

National Lottery

Peter Luff: If she will review the criteria for the allocation of lottery funds to good causes.

Estelle Morris: The criteria for the allocation of lottery funds depend on the distributing body and the individual funding programme concerned. We have set the framework in policy and financial directions for the distributors and they have drawn up strategic plans and funding policies.

Peter Luff: The general taxpayer has often paid for many good causes through his or her taxes, particularly health and education. The purpose of the lottery is to provide money for other things that general taxation did not pay for—in particular, arts, the Community Fund, heritage and sport. So why is arts funding down £160 million a year under this Government, the Community Fund down £140 million, heritage lottery funding down £120 million and sports down £140 million, while the New Opportunities Fund, all of which should be paid from general taxation, is up £450 million?

Estelle Morris: Part of the reason why the revenues to the original funding streams have changed is that, not this year, but previously, sale of tickets had decreased. There is a direct correlation: if not as many people buy tickets, not as much money is sent to the good causes. I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, which I think was additionality. Of course, education, health and the environment have statutory funding, but let me take, for example, two of the things that have been funded from the New Opportunities Fund—after-school homework clubs and the fruit initiative in schools. Those have never been funded out of general taxation for citizens. That expenditure has gone on at exactly the same time as there has been a massive increase in the amount of taxpayers' money—public funding—going to the education and health services and environment. It cannot have replaced direct funding from the Government because Government funding for each of those key services has increased far more than ever it did under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Jim Sheridan: During the review, will my right hon. Friend ensure that all hon. Members are made aware of applications, whether successful or unsuccessful, in their constituencies, so that a proper assessment can be made of where the money is being spent? Could she also reinforce the principle that lottery funding should go to community-based projects that affect people's lives?

Estelle Morris: I will do that. It is important that feedback is given to Members of Parliament. Many right hon. and hon. Members have been helpful in working with the lottery distributors to make sure that their constituents get what might be termed a fair share of the resources. I agree that money doing direct to community use is of great benefit. As my hon. Friend will know, more than half the awards go to the 100 most deprived local authorities. I am sure he shares my pleasure at that.

John Whittingdale: Will the Minister acknowledge, first, that the national lottery is a Conservative success story? Is it not the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) pointed out, that under the Government more and more money is siphoned off to pay for Government projects—I regard both those that she mentioned as Government projects—with the result that the money given to the original good causes last year was less than half the amount it was when the last Conservative Government left office? The Government's own report estimates that the increase in other gambling as a result of the Gambling Bill may lead to a further loss of up to £70 million from the lottery. Is it not sad that on the lottery's 10th anniversary, the Government seem intent on inflicting still further damage to the good causes?

Estelle Morris: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman, seven years later, trying to find something to claim credit for under the previous Conservative Administration. I give credit to him. I seem to remember, but I may be wrong, that the introduction of the lottery received support from all parties in the House. Never mind; it was a good initiative and it has brought a great deal of much-needed funding to good causes and to other services as well. All I have to say in addition to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is that if my memory serves me right, we made it clear in our 1997 election manifesto that we would look at what were defined as "good causes". I would bet—given that it is a day for gambling talk—that people who buy lottery tickets think it is a good thing to spend lottery funding on many of the causes that we have added to the legislation, such as education, health and environment.

Teddy Taylor: What the latest figure is for the number of national lottery tickets sold weekly; and what the figure was (a) 12 and (b) 24 months ago.

Estelle Morris: Average weekly sales for the first half of this financial year were £90.5 million. The average weekly sales for 2003–04 were £88.7 million and the average weekly sales for 2002–03 were £87.9 million.

Teddy Taylor: If there is such a huge unmet demand for gambling, as the Government seem to argue in the Bill coming before us, why does the Minister think sales of lottery tickets have not been soaring, in view of the prizes of several million pounds? Does she accept that over the past few years, sales have decreased rather than increased?

Estelle Morris: Whereas last year the question could have been asked why lottery sales had decreased, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that they have increased in the past year—a 4.7 per cent. increase on the figure for the same time last year. That is a result of the fact—not my own opinion—that Camelot has diversified the games on offer. It is cautious, and I am not being over-optimistic that it has turned the corner or that more funding will come in for distribution to good causes, but it does not become any of us not to acknowledge that after a period of declining sales, we have seen an increase in sales. I for one am pleased about that, because it will mean more money going to good causes.

Tony Banks: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one of the ways that perhaps she could do something about the declining revenue from lottery ticket sales and the declining amount of money that has gone to good causes would be to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up his share of the lottery? The Chancellor wins every week. When the original proposal was brought forward, people did not anticipate that we would be giving so much money to the Treasury.

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend can suggest that to me but I would merely say that that is a matter for the Treasury.

Football Association

Andy Burnham: What recent discussions she has held with the Football Association on (a) its structure and (b) governance of the sport.

Richard Caborn: As with all governing bodies, the Government's aim is for them to be fit for purpose. The Football Association is no exception. The FA has been discussing a review of the organisation, including its structure and governance, since the spring of 2004. The events of the summer have underlined the need for a review, and the board and council are committed to one headed by an independent person, who will want to take a view on when they will be able to report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the FA in August this year, and I have been in regular contact with the FA during this time.

Andy Burnham: I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister must have gone for extra time on this question.
	Is it not the clearest sign that the Football Association desperately needs reform that supporters have no voice on its council yet a place can be found for Cambridge and Oxford universities and the public schools? Does my hon. Friend share my concern of reports that talk of reform is being used by some of the big clubs to grab yet more power? Does he agree that that is the last thing that football in this country needs?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. We must question why we have the Independent Football Commission. We must question also why we have an organisation for the fans. Further, we must ask why we have separate funding for grass-roots football through the foundation. Any review would consider the good regulation and governance of this important sport that is our national game. I hope and believe that the FA, within the terms of reference and given the person that it appoints, will bear that in mind. The FA will then be fit for purpose and will be a governing body of which we can all be proud.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Repairs

NOTHING

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the level of funding for church repairs in the current financial year.

Stuart Bell: English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are making available £25 million for 2004–05 towards repair grants for listed places of worship of all faiths. This needs to be set against the £93 million spent in 2002 by the Church of England alone.

Anne McIntosh: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm newspaper reports that funding is insufficient to keep up with the repairs that are required?

Stuart Bell: If I may quote the words of Aneurin Bevan, the reading of newspapers remains for me a source of "continuous fiction". I am not able to comment on that particular newspaper report.
	If I may make a plug for my own constituency, we have Holy Trinity church, North Ormesby, where by way of church repairs we have a new multi-purpose church-run community centre. This has been a major catalyst for regeneration of the area. I was present when the Archbishop of York opened the centre. This is an example of what the hon. Lady supports for the rural communities that she represents, where she devotes a great deal of energy—more, I dare say than on the reading of newspapers.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that churches such as St. Peter's in the town centre of Burnley—an ancient church that is a focal part of the town—has had to find £65,000 recently to repair the pinnacles? It has been one thing after another. About £1 million has been spent over recent years. English Heritage rightly insists on certain conditions being maintained but is not able to assist with the finance for the essential repairs to be undertaken.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to his constituency and for drawing attention to the dilemma that we face, first, in repairing our churches and, secondly, in having them a part of a community. I refer him to the remarks of the Bishop of London in the other place on 25 October, and particularly to the statement of Lord McIntosh, when he said that the Government will respond positively to the Church Heritage Forum's report in due course. We accept a good deal of the analysis of the problem and many of the solutions. There is a problem in my hon. Friend's constituency and there is a solution, and that is to the benefit of his community.

Pensions

David Taylor: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the first report of the Pensions Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Bell: The report is an authoritative analysis of a problem facing pensioners, the pensions industry and Government. The Church of England pensions board will discuss the report at its next meeting on 24 November.

David Taylor: Ministers of religion do not seek or receive the fame and fortune accorded to Ministers in government, so it is crucial that those called to lead our worship, our parishes and our communities at least receive decent treatment at the end of their working lives. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Church Commissioners will respond positively to the challenges and choices flagged up by the Turner report, so that potential priesthood recruits are not deterred by prospective poverty in retirement?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend has made a valid and pertinent point. We are not here to discuss the pension rights of ministers of religion, but he will be aware of the Church's commitment to a defined benefit scheme, which is more generous than the money purchase schemes to which many employers are switching—in effect, money purchase schemes switch the risk to employees. I also remind my hon. Friend that the Pensions Commission's report does not offer detailed conclusions, and the final report is due in 12 to 18 months' time. On encouraging recruits to the priesthood, the numbers who have joined encourage us, and those recruits were not put off by the pension schemes for clergy on retirement.

John Bercow: How many retired members of the clergy are dependent on means-tested benefits?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman obviously reads the newspapers, where he can also read his own comments. I will be glad to give him an answer, if I can, and place it in the Library.

Westminster Abbey

James Gray: When the builders' yard between Westminster abbey and St. Margaret's Westminster will be removed.

Stuart Bell: The Dean and Chapter intend to proceed with removing the builders' yard and, as soon as practicable, landscape the area.

James Gray: That answer is extraordinarily welcome, and I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for it.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission Committee, was asked—

Electoral Registration

Mark Lazarowicz: What recent steps the Electoral Commission has taken to bring about a higher level of electoral registration.

Peter Viggers: It is the duty of electoral registration officers to maintain the electoral registers, while the Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to promote public awareness. The commission directs pre-election reminders at the entire electorate and runs campaigns targeted at specific groups such as home movers, students and young people outside formal education. It also provides advice on the local promotion of electoral registration.

Mark Lazarowicz: Although the way in which we register electors in this country does not have the same variety as in some other countries that we could mention, different local authorities approach electoral registration in different ways, which no doubt affects the number of people who are registered. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the commission to examine how to encourage local authorities to adopt best practice in order to ensure the highest possible level of registration? In particular, will he consider asking the commission to give guidance to local authorities on ensuring that they produce publicity and advertising material in all appropriate languages other than English?

Peter Viggers: Yes; I understand that the commission operates in seven languages. The commission published a guidance manual in 2002 that suggested methods that registration officers could use to encourage registration, and it included a practical guide to planning and running a registration campaign. The commission continues to respond to requests from registration officers for advice in that area. In addition, the commission produces an annual canvass and other registration publicity materials, which are available on demand by registration officers.

Andrew Tyrie: My hon. Friend is already aware of the alarming fall in the registration of men and women in the armed services caused by a change in rules by the Electoral Commission, which now requires servicemen to re-register annually. Does he consider it a disgrace, particularly at this time, that so many servicemen may find themselves without a vote at the next general election? What action has the Electoral Commission proposed to try to rectify that?

Peter Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for identifying that important point. If I tell him that in the borough of Gosport the number of service-registered voters has fallen from 4,370 in 2000 to 474 in 2004, he will recognise that I personally share his concerns. Perhaps rather surprisingly, I am advised by the Electoral Commission that it has no direct powers to investigate the statistics. However, when I spoke to its chairman this morning, he told me that he will approach the Ministry of Defence with a view to working together to assess the extent of the problem of non-registration of service personnel and to consider what steps might appropriately be taken. The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that it is very much seized of the issue.

Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman bring the Electoral Commission's attention to several measures that I put before the House from 1993 onwards in an attempt to improve electoral registration, especially in terms of rolling registers? As we have a highly mobile society, registration should follow people around to ensure that they are on the register.

Peter Viggers: There are currently no centrally held data on that in relation to Britain. In Northern Ireland, Electoral Commission research found that rolling registration resulted in an increase of 2.1 percentage points in the number of names on the register during the six-month period between December 2002 and May 2003. The commission's current research project on electoral registration in Britain will investigate the impact of rolling registration by using case-study evidence from a selection of local authorities. The project is expected to be completed by the spring or summer of 2005.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Cathedrals (Lottery Funding)

Michael Fabricant: What steps the commissioners are taking to ensure that adequate funding is made available from lottery funds to maintain the fabric of English cathedrals; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Bell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to the question of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I am grateful for his reference to Westminster abbey, because that enables me to draw the House's attention to the tercentenary celebrations this Thursday. It is 300 years since the Church got its money back from the Crown, and this will be a worthy celebration.
	In response to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), that is a matter for individual cathedrals and the Association of English Cathedrals.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. However, does he share my surprise that the paper by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in her place—on culture and regeneration makes absolutely no mention of English cathedrals?
	Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent Ecotec survey says that cathedrals generate in the order of £150 million each year in total local spend for their regional economies, yet only one eleventh of all the money available for the maintenance of the fabric of English cathedrals comes from lottery funds? Given that these are often listed buildings that are 900 or 1,000 years old, is not that rather inadequate?

Stuart Bell: We should
	"render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's".
	I will leave it to the DCMS to respond appropriately to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On his second point, according to my information cathedrals generate at least £91 million a year for the national economy. They need to spend £11 million a year on repairs and maintenance, but from 2005 they will receive just £1 million a year in repair grant. If I may end with another quote from the Bible,
	"Those who have ears will hear".

Simon Hughes: Given the nature of the crisis in funding across English cathedrals of all denominations, is the hon. Gentleman willing to convene a meeting with a Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, somebody from the Heritage Lottery Fund, and representatives of the cathedrals to assess and agree the cost of the work that needs to be done, and then to find a better means of raising the money to do it?

Stuart Bell: I would be happy to take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and to include him in any meeting.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee of the Electoral Commission Committee, was asked—

Electoral Registration

Chris Bryant: What study the Electoral Commission has made of the feasibility of introducing a single harmonised national electoral register.

Peter Viggers: The commission reported last year that electoral registers should continue to be compiled and managed locally but should form part of an electronically maintained national register. To date, it has not undertaken any study of the feasibility of introducing a single harmonised national electoral register.

Chris Bryant: One of the difficulties is that, because different parts of the country manage the electoral register in very different ways and are sometimes susceptible to the vagaries of local party politics, we end up with an electoral register that is very unreliable in many areas. Moreover, because many people move much more frequently than they used to, some accidentally or deliberately appear on the register at two different addresses instead of just one. Would not it make far more sense to move swiftly towards a single harmonised register?

Peter Viggers: That issue is very much in the mind of the Commission. I understand that it believes that creating a national version of the register based on local registers that comply with national data standards should help to ensure that voters' details are accurate and up to date. It would also help to underpin improvements to the registration and electoral systems. A national version of the register should also provide more efficient access to those individuals and organisations that are legally entitled to copies of the electoral register.

Points of Order

David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In proceedings on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill last week, the Home Secretary said that he would make an announcement on Third Reading, and issued a press release to that effect. Third Reading never took place, however, owing to the incompetence of the business managers. In justifying his action, the Home Secretary alleged, at column 1542 of the Official Report of 27 October, that the Opposition had "filibustered". No such filibuster could possibly have taken place, however, since the House was voting during the time allocated for Third Reading. His allegation is also an attack on the authority of Madam Deputy Speaker, since any filibustering would have been ruled out of order under Standing Order No. 42. Will you therefore require the Home Secretary to apologise to Madam Deputy Speaker for his completely false allegation, and to apologise for his discourtesy to the House in making entirely false and mischievous allegations?

Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not for me to bring a Minister here to apologise. I have looked at the events of that day, however, and discussed the matter with my deputies. If any hon. Member had been filibustering, the Chair would have pointed it out to the hon. Member concerned. The fact that it was not pointed out means that there was no filibustering.

Julie Kirkbride: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a champion of Back-Bench rights who enables us to do our job of holding the Executive to account, will you offer me some advice? You may have seen press reports last week that the Prime Minister was refusing to answer my questions, and those of other hon. Members, about the meetings that he has had with representatives of the international casino industry, as well as the domestic gaming industry. Many people in the domestic industry believe that the international industry has been given more favourable treatment. It is therefore relevant that we should know whom the Prime Minister has met, and that he should answer our questions on this matter. Surely there should be some independent adjudication as to which questions the Prime Minister should answer. Will you help me, through your good offices or perhaps those of the Cabinet Secretary, to ascertain who decides which questions the Prime Minister should answer?

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can reply to the hon. Lady first. I am very pleased that she regards me as a champion of the Back Benchers. It is nice to have a vote of confidence now and again. I would say to her, however, that we are debating the Second Reading of the Gambling Bill today, and she can take these matters up during the course of that debate if she is lucky enough to catch my eye. Does that answer help the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)?

James Gray: More or less, Mr. Speaker, but further to that point of order, I understand that, on Friday last week, the lawyers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Labour party political advisers were seeking legal methods of avoiding answering questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and me on this important subject. This morning, however, in the No. 10 briefing, the Prime Minister has answered those questions. He told the press that he had not had meetings with representatives of the gambling industry. Surely it is very strange to go to great lengths to avoid my hon. Friend's and my questions, and then to answer them straightforwardly in the press briefing this morning.

Mr. Speaker: I would not know anything about Labour party officials: I do not belong to the Labour party. I reiterate that the debate is about to start, and the hon. Gentleman may well have an opportunity to catch my eye.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Gambling Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I know that passions are running high about this Bill, both in the House and outside. But I hope that our debate can be based on the facts, on concern for the public interest, and nothing else. The Bill addresses a subject that has not been properly scrutinised for more than 40 years, because of the policy of previous Administrations, which, where gambling was concerned, was to sidestep the big issues and be content to tinker. That is a luxury that we can no longer afford. We need to address the challenges that are caused by new technology, by the internet and by the steady growth in consumer demand. We need to keep gambling crime-free by giving regulators new powers and new duties. We need to make sure that our desire to give adults freedom to gamble if they wish is not at the cost of children or the vulnerable.

Kate Hoey: It might be helpful if the Secretary of State were to tell us clearly whether this Bill, as it is now, was in this Government's manifesto.

Tessa Jowell: Certainly, we undertook in the Queen's Speech to publish a draft gambling Bill.
	The proposals contained in the Bill have been developed over a five-year period—I cannot recall whether the proposals were in the manifesto, because work on developing the proposals started in the previous Parliament, when this was the responsibility of the Home Secretary—beginning with Sir Alan Budd's review, and followed by a White Paper, a draft Bill considered by a Committee of both Houses, and the Bill today.
	Until recently, there was cross-party consensus for reform led by the work of the Scrutiny Committee on the draft Bill, which was ably chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), to whom I would like to pay tribute. As is often the case, consensus in dealing with what is a difficult contemporary social issue was replaced by the opportunism of a passing bandwagon. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, every proposal will be considered on its merits in Committee. I give the House my assurance that I will give every consideration to suggestions from right hon. and hon. Members that are genuinely intended to improve the Bill.

John Gummer: The right hon. Lady mentioned the vulnerable earlier. Will she explain why she characterised Labour Back Benchers, Opposition Members such as me, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army as snobbish, because we stood up for the vulnerable? How does she say that when that would mean that most of the historic Labour figures were snobbish because they too stood up for the vulnerable?

Tessa Jowell: Had that been what I said, it would have been deeply offensive, and I would have apologised for it. I respect entirely the fact that people, on ethical, religious and other grounds, are opposed to gambling. I did not describe people as snobs—I referred to a whiff of snobbery pervading this debate, which is quite different from the allegation that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

Kevin Hughes: My right hon. Friend has found out over this weekend that there is never a shortage of do-gooders telling people how to spend their leisure time. No doubt she will hear more of that in the House today. Does she agree with me that the British people are intelligent and sophisticated enough to make their own choices about what they do with their cash and leisure time? I hope that the Bill gets its Second Reading today.

Tessa Jowell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Neither this debate nor the British people are served by the kind of patronising attitude that doubts people's ability to make choices about how to spend their marginal income or leisure time.

Bob Russell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make some progress; I will then take further interventions.
	Scrutiny has improved the Bill to date, and I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government will listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members, particularly when they offer constructive proposals that contribute to, or strengthen, the Bill's three underlying objectives: to protect children and the vulnerable, to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and to keep gambling in this country crime-free.

Nick Gibb: rose—

Tessa Jowell: The key principle will be that of social responsibility—a condition that is the test of each element of the Bill.

David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that these days, children have access to the internet and, through computer games, to gratuitous violence in the most graphic sense, in the privacy of their own rooms? Does she really think that they will be protected by banning the penny arcade?

Tessa Jowell: We are not banning the penny arcade in this Bill and yes, we do have to address the risks that children face, but not by taking disproportionate action in respect of matters for which there is no evidence of harm.

Nick Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Tessa Jowell: I will give way on that point.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Why does the Bill impose a maximum stake on family amusements such those that enable children to win a teddy bear by picking it up with a crane? In Bognor Regis, the stake for such machines is 30p a go; if a 10p maximum is imposed, such amusements will be rendered unviable. Will she look again at this provision, so that the Bill does not have the unintended consequence of bankrupting family amusement arcades in seaside towns, only for them to be replaced by hard gambling outlets?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the hon. Gentleman to contain the impatience that he expressed solely on behalf of Bognor Regis; he will hear reassuring words from me later.
	I recognise that gambling is a controversial, difficult and complex matter. That was true when betting shops were legalised, it was true when the Conservatives introduced the national lottery and the associated multi-million pound jackpots 10 years ago, and it is certainly true now. There are some people in this country—including, indeed, Members in all parts of the House, as I have said—who have a sincere and profoundly held objection to gambling. They would rather that gambling did not take place at all, and they certainly do not think that the state should sanction it. They may take this view for ethical, philosophical or religious reasons, or even because of family or personal experience, and I completely understand and respect it.

Julie Kirkbride: rose—

Tessa Jowell: There are other people who do not have a fundamental objection to gambling, but who choose not to gamble themselves and are happy for others to have the freedom to do so, provided that certain safeguards are in place to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are properly protected. That happens to be the view that I share.
	There is a further group of people who do gamble. For them, it is just part of life—a source of enjoyment and a freedom that they value. Yes, they want safeguards to be in place, but they regard gambling as an activity in respect of which the restrictions should be kept to a minimum.

Bob Russell: rose—

Tessa Jowell: Judged by their behaviour, this group is perhaps the largest of the three. Each year, some 4 million people visit the country's 700 bingo clubs. Each month, an estimated 4 million Britons log on to a gambling website. Each week, more than 1 million people bet on horse races. Last year, visitors to casinos staked £4 billion. If the national lottery is included, 70 per cent. of the population gamble regularly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tessa Jowell: So views on gambling vary enormously, and the purpose of this Second Reading debate is to allow those views to be heard.
	The House should recognise, however, that gambling is at the boundary between personal freedom and state intervention. On one side of the boundary is the reasonable expectation of adults who, within the law, exercise their right to live their lives as they choose. On the other is the role of the state: to recognise human frailty, and in particular to respect its duty to protect children and the vulnerable. As a Government and a society, we have three options in that respect: prohibition, a free-for-all or regulation. We have no doubt about choosing the regulatory route. The question for the House is how best to apply the regulatory framework for the benefit of society as a whole.

Bob Russell: Can I ask the right hon. Lady how many residents of Dulwich and West Norwood have asked her to provide that part of London with a super-casino?

Tessa Jowell: As of yet, the provisions governing super-casinos are not on the statute book. The hon. Gentleman may have encountered all sorts of wild speculation about planning permissions being granted or applied for, but not a single planning permission for a new casino under the new regime has yet been granted.

Donald Anderson: I do not know whether I fall into the category of an opportunist or a snob, but I would certainly accept do-gooder as the definition of someone who tries to do good in this matter. Do-gooders are certainly better than do-badders. Does my right hon. Friend not see the world of difference between ordinary folks who want to go to bingo halls and the proliferation of mega-casinos, which must be the intended effect of what she is proposing? Why cannot she have a few pilots in order to test her own views against what will happen in the real world?

Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend falls into the particular category of very talented and important Members of the House.

Ken Purchase: Better than being a do-badder.

Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend did not expect a tribute. If proliferation were to be the consequence of these proposals, my right hon. Friend would have reason for concern, but if he will allow me to develop my argument, I hope to persuade him that his prediction will not, in fact, be realised. Let me just set out briefly how we reached this Bill—

Geraldine Smith: rose—

Tessa Jowell: I shall give way now, but then I want to make some progress.

Geraldine Smith: On children, clause 56 specifically states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order create an offence of inviting, causing or permitting a child or young person below a specified age to use a Category D gaming machine."
	Are the Government seriously suggesting that a parent could be prosecuted for allowing her child to go into a seaside amusement arcade and roll a 10p piece down a shoot to win a cuddly toy? If so, it is the nanny state gone mad.

Tessa Jowell: If that were the case, my hon. Friend would be absolutely right that it would be an example of over-zealous and interventionist government. I shall explain at the appropriate point later in my remarks exactly why that provision sits in the Bill.

John Bercow: rose—

Tessa Jowell: I am not giving way yet.
	Let me briefly recap how the Bill came about. New regulation is, by common consent, undoubtedly necessary. Every year and every week sees new developments in the gambling market, often in poorly regulated environments. The danger of the status quo lies not in more of the same, but in the current growth of poorly regulated gambling with little or no protection for those who play. Those who argue against the Bill cannot, if they are concerned about protection, defend the status quo.
	We have recently seen roulette machines installed in betting offices against the wishes of the Gaming Board and similar machines proliferating in bingo halls and amusement centres. Since 1968 there have been many deregulatory measures affecting gambling. They have been brought forward on a piecemeal basis. That has been the problem. They included measures to allow the advertising of bingo, to allow betting offices to have clear windows and to increase the number of jackpot machines in casinos. Most came under the deregulation orders following the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. We can all remember who was in power at that time.
	The Lords deregulation Committee pointed out how unsatisfactory a piecemeal approach can be and initiated the process that led to the establishment of the gambling review body in the late 1990s, under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Budd. So the Bill is not a radical departure. It is a continuation of adapting to change since we last legislated for gambling 36 years ago, but this time, the Bill does so comprehensively rather than in fragments.
	Part 1 of the Bill provides definitions, including the new licensing objectives that I have set out. Part 2 establishes the gambling commission, which will control commercial gambling to ensure that it is fair and safe. Parts 3 and 4 consolidate and modernise gambling offences. Part 4 concentrates on the new offences to protect children, which I know are of concern to the House. Parts 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 set out the new licensing system to be administered by the gambling commission and local licensing authorities. The commission will take over the Gaming Board's responsibilities for casinos, bingo, gaming machines and the lottery.

Joan Humble: Will the Secretary of State explain how the rules on licensing can be linked to planning arrangements, because one of the major fears of many Members, even those like me who support the introduction of the Bill and regional casinos, is that of proliferation? How will planning arrangements be linked to the excellent provisions on licensing in the Bill?

Tessa Jowell: I promise my hon. Friend, who I know has taken a great interest in this matter, that I will deal with it in some detail. I know that it is of such concern to Members to understand how the triple lock will operate in order to prevent the proliferation of new casinos.
	The gambling commission will regulate through conditions on operating and personal licences, and for the first time, anybody who is licensed to run gambling premises will be obliged to pursue social responsibility as a condition of their operating licence. If operators breach the terms and conditions, they will face very tough sanctions. Unlike the Gaming Board, the new gambling commission will have the power to impose unlimited financial penalties on operators who breach their conditions. Local authorities will take on the licensing of premises under the guidance of the gambling commission. In Scotland, licensing boards will license premises.
	Part 10 establishes a new regime for gaming machines that accommodates the developments in technology that have occurred since 1968. Part 11 provides for a new regime for charity lotteries. Parts 12, 13 and 14 deal with gambling that is small scale, incidental to other entertainment, or non-commercial. Part 15 provides new powers for effective inspection. Part 16 addresses advertising, and part 17 gambling debts. Lastly, part 18 deals with Bill-wide provisions.

Peter Viggers: The right hon. Lady's Department said that the Bill would be revenue-neutral, implying a very substantial reduction in gambling duty. Although that statement was later slapped down, was the reduction in gambling duty discussed when the Labour party fundraiser Lord Levy met representatives of the international gambling industry?

Tessa Jowell: No, it was not. Secondly, the reference to revenue-neutrality was an error. It was a term in common use that was misunderstood. [Interruption.] Let me explain. The point being made was that revenue is not a motivator for this legislation. It is my job as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to establish the regulatory framework; it is the Treasury's responsibility to establish the taxation regime. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Precisely. The taxation regime will follow once the regulatory regime is in place. I do not think that anything has changed very much on that front in the past seven and a half years.
	To reduce the risk of harm, the Bill provides new powers to regulate the way in which gambling is offered. Our controls are currently limited to specifying what can be offered and where that can happen. The Bill will give us powers to change the way in which gambling is offered to avoid harm.
	We have a low level of problem gambling in Britain. Approximately 0.6 to 0.8 per cent. of adults report the types of behaviour that are associated with problem gambling. However, for them, gambling can be a dangerous and destructive addiction. It can ruin the lives and livelihoods not only of gamblers but of their families. As with other forms of addiction to legal activities, we have to balance carefully the citizen's right to act freely with the state's duty to minimise harm and warn of the risks.

Andrew Miller: The problem of dealing with internet gambling and those who have become addicted through it is an example of risk that falls outside much of the scope of the Bill. What discussions has my right hon. Friend held with credit card and escrow companies to try to tackle that difficult subject?

Tessa Jowell: As we make online gambling legal for the first time in this country, my hon. Friend will welcome provisions that allow offshore sites to return to this country to operate in a proper regulatory framework that protects both the interests of individual players and ensures that children cannot play on the internet. It also takes precautions in relation to the credit risk about which my hon. Friend expressed concern.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tessa Jowell: I want to make progress.
	There is a parallel between alcohol and gambling. Both are legal pursuits, both carry an associated risk of addiction and the state has chosen not to proscribe but to shape supply. The Bill gives Ministers and the commission the power to respond to new risks, increase controls and avoid harm. We will get evidence, through a substantially increased programme of genuinely new research, which has already started. A national gambling audit will take place every three years. The first will happen before the Bill takes effect.

Brian Mawhinney: I have been reflecting on the right hon. Lady's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). Is she telling hon. Members that she wants the Bill on the statute book before any information is released about inducements that the Government may have offered to mega-casino owners?

Tessa Jowell: No inducements have been offered to mega-casinos. We will get the measure on the statute book because millions of people are at risk unless that happens.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tessa Jowell: I shall not give way. [Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.

Tessa Jowell: Just as there will be a baseline against which we can judge the impact of all our reforms, there will be not one but two further gambling studies before we even consider any calls for further relaxation of the new regime. We shall thus have a proper baseline, which tells us how many people gamble, and against which we can monitor closely, through the gambling commission, the impact of any of the changes. If evidence of harm emerges through the research and monitoring that is undertaken, we will act swiftly to toughen the controls.
	We have powers throughout the Bill to withdraw or move back from the liberalisation if there is evidence of harm.

James Gray: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Tessa Jowell: No, I must make progress.
	Much of the comment on the Bill claimed that the country wanted no more gambling and no more casino games. Although I respect the views of those who wish that demand did not exist, I ask hon. Members to examine the evidence. Many hon. Members know about the growing popularity of roulette machines in betting offices. From none two or three years ago, there are now more than 20,000, and the number continues to rise. As I have said before, the machines are on probation. Under the Bill, they will be under effective legislative control for the first time.
	I suspect that all Members will have seen the countless advertisements for internet casinos and for poker rooms. Companies that conduct research into the internet estimate that some 16 per cent. of Britons visit an internet gambling site every month. Three years ago, 250,000 British people travelled to Las Vegas; next year, that is likely to double to 500,000.
	What is more, many of the problems that we have faced over the past few years have arisen because gambling companies have been trying to install casino games on non-casino premises such as betting offices, bingo halls and amusement arcades. Anyone passing a betting office in the high street today is likely to see a huge poster inviting them to bet roulette. They are just as likely to see that as to see a picture of a horse. The industry is doing all that it can to get roulette into the high street, because wherever it succeeds in doing so roulette proves very popular.
	Some, I accept, would react to that evidence by suggesting that we prohibit such choices; but if we have learnt anything at all about the history of regulating gambling, it is that if the law does not allow people to gamble safely, they will find ways of gambling at higher risk. We do not want to drive gambling underground or offshore. Expenditure on gambling is rising by about 3.5 per cent. each year, and it is predicted that that rate of increase will continue, with or without the Bill. People will go on choosing casino games whether we like it or not; the question for us is, how do we direct that demand?

Betty Williams: There is a saying in Wales: three attempts and she might hear.
	There is currently a requirement for an unstimulated demand test to be met before new casinos can be approved. I understand that the Bill would scrap that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such action would make it more difficult for local planning authorities to reject huge casino applications?

Tessa Jowell: That was a timely intervention, as I am about to deal with the role of casinos in the Bill—in the context of a clear undertaking that there will be no new casinos if local people do not want them. I want to explain what is in the Bill, how we intend to achieve our aims, and how rigorous the safeguards are.
	The Bill will certainly remove some of the more outdated restrictions on casinos. It will abolish the permitted areas that limit casinos to 53 former county boroughs, including those that had populations of 125,000 or more between December 1970 and October 1973. That explains why, believe it or not, it is possible to have a casino in Mayfair but not in Greenwich. The Bill will also abolish the membership rules requiring a 24-hour wait between joining a casino and playing games.
	We consider it reasonable for British consumers to be allowed access to casino games on properly regulated casino premises. We would rather people gambled on machines in the carefully controlled environment of a casino than on dodgy internet sites at home. Our strategy, however, is intended to avoid the mistakes made by other countries such as Australia, which allowed a widespread proliferation of high-price machine gambling in the high streets. What we propose for the casino industry in Great Britain is a restrained modernisation that protects the public from problem gambling.

Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend mentioned my borough, Greenwich. Several planning authorities in the Thames gateway area may be attracted to the idea of having a casino; what is the best way of deciding which should have planning permission? [Laughter.] I think we should treat the issue a bit more seriously.
	How do we decide whether regional planning priorities should determine where a casino goes, or whether it should be a matter for the local planning authority? Should there not be a national criterion enabling us to designate an area suitable? The local authority would have to demonstrate that it had consulted local people and referred to both its own unitary development plan and the regional development plan, and had received support, before it could proceed to the next phase and develop a casino?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend makes a full and important intervention, but if he will bear with me I will answer his very good points in due course.
	Sir Alan Budd, in his review, recommended a minimum customer area for new casinos of approximately 200 sq m to discourage too many small casinos. However, the Government have decided that the minimum size should be considerably larger—over three times larger—at 750 sq m. The net effect will be fewer new casinos than Sir Alan proposed, and only the largest casinos, with a minimum area of 5,000 sq m, will be entitled to house the new style machines. We will cap machine numbers in all casinos, and we will keep the present £2,000 prize limit for the two smaller categories of casino.
	A number of casino operators have announced proposals for new leisure developments in different parts of the country, although the figures given in some newspapers for new regional casinos are wildly off the mark. Of course, these are all just proposals; almost none of them has gambling licences or planning permission. If the developments go ahead on the scale envisaged, they will no doubt bring significant economic and employment benefits to the areas in which they are located. For instance, the company that proposes a £125 million development on disused land in a regeneration area will, if it is approved, provide a host of new leisure facilities, of which a casino would be a relatively small component. Overall, the development would provide hundreds of construction jobs, employ over 1,000 staff and provide significant support to Leeds United football club.
	Let me set out clearly for the House the very tight framework within which such new casinos will be allowed. I have spoken before about the triple lock that applies, and I want to explain each step in turn. I am very aware that there are calls from some quarters for a national cap on the number of the new regional casinos. The Joint Committee looked carefully at the issue and did not recommend a cap. I share the objective that regional casinos should be relatively few in number, but I do think that a cap may be a blunt instrument. My preferred alternative is for tough planning and licensing tests that may well be difficult for a number of proposals to pass, but do allow some flexibility for local communities. I am dirigiste only about the ends, not the means, and all sides agree that this cannot be left purely to the market, so let me set out how the regime would work.
	The first lock is the operating licensing system. Anybody who wishes to operate a casino in the UK must apply to the gambling commission for an operating licence. Applicants will be rigorously tested to ensure that they measure up to the three statutory objectives in the Bill: to protect children and vulnerable adults, to keep gambling crime free and to ensure fair play for consumers. The gambling commissions's job of assessing licence applications will not be a question of ticking a box. Each and every application will have to go through careful and rigorous consideration.
	The second lock is the premises licensing system, for which local authorities will be responsible. The Bill requires every local authority to have a gambling licensing policy that covers all gambling and betting premises, including casinos, and it empowers local authorities to consult the public on their licensing policy, including the casino element of it.
	I understand the concerns that right hon. and hon. Members have expressed about local authorities finding the development benefits too tempting, so I will listen closely to the argument that the power to consult on the licensing policy should be replaced with a duty. That duty is already implicit in the planning procedures, but I am happy to consider making it more explicit. At this point, or at any time it chooses, a local authority may resolve, under clause 157, not to allow any new casinos in its area. It has a wide discretion to exercise that power, and in deciding whether to exercise it, it may have regard to "any principle or matter", and the power lasts for three years and is renewable. The Joint Committee did not recommend the power of resolution. I decided to add it to the Bill because I wanted local authorities that do not want new casinos to be able to say so clearly and categorically, and to be protected from any of the risks that might follow.
	The Bill allows any local authority to impose a blanket ban on new casino development, and I am sure that the House will support that, but even if an authority does not decide to apply such a ban it still has strong powers to reject a specific application for a casino development, whether large, small, or regional. Local authorities can and must test any application for a premises licence against the three licensing criteria in the Bill and can refuse any application that does not meet them.

John Bercow: I understand the triple lock, and I see what the right hon. Lady means by her preferred alternative, but surely there is something to be said for a backstop position. Given that she envisages only between 20 and 40 super-casinos but that her critics predict a very much larger number, I put it to her that introducing a limit in the Bill on the total number, as well as being right in itself, would help to facilitate the smooth passage of this important Bill, which in other respects she is entirely right to champion.

Tessa Jowell: I know that there will be a lot of discussion about this aspect of the proposals both here and, if the Bill secures a Second Reading, in Committee. The practical obstacle created by a cap is that the whole thrust of the regulatory and planning system is to leave decisions about new casinos to local people, but if an arbitrary limit is imposed, what do we say to those local authorities—there may be a significant number—that present applications for new casinos just as the cap is about to be reached, and—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and allow the right hon. Lady to speak.

Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to explain what I believe is one of the issues of contention at the heart of the Bill, and it is important that, if hon. Members raise concerns about it, they should listen to the answer. This is not the end of the story, and I expect further discussion in Committee.

Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no appeal against the veto on super-casinos that she is giving to local authorities; otherwise, authorities will be overruled, will they not, by the Secretary of State?

Tessa Jowell: As the provisions stand, there is no appeal against the provisions in clause 157, but my right hon. Friend may wish to return to this point at another time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tessa Jowell: I intend to make some progress by returning to the licensing and planning regime.
	If a casino application was considered to be too close to, for instance, a residential area or a school, it could be refused on the social responsibility criteria in clause 1. That is the case even before the planning regime and the third lock become effective.
	The planning system is crucial. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department for working so closely with me and my Department on the interaction of licensing and planning policy. He and I are happy to give the House a firm undertaking that the licensing and planning regimes will be fully aligned to ensure that the Bill is implemented in a cautious and responsible way that respects the wishes of local authorities and local communities. The Deputy Prime Minister and I will make sure that detailed advice is available about the transition period.

John Greenway: What the Secretary of State is saying is helpful to the House, but what is the Government's current thinking on the Joint Committee's recommendation that there should be a separate planning use class for regional casinos?

Tessa Jowell: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall have more to say about that.
	As Secretary of State, I have the power to commence the Bill in such a way that the gambling commission is got up and running and there is reasonable time to put in place appropriate local and regional planning frameworks before premises licence applications are made, and that is what I shall do. For regional casinos, we will make sure, under the provisions of the new planning regime, that regional spatial strategies are updated to take account of the Bill. Regional authorities will be able to analyse the best locations for regional casinos from the point of view of economic growth, tourism promotion and regional sustainability, as well as existing regional development plans.
	Regional authorities will identify broad locations for regional casinos, but the local authority—the licensing authority—will have the final say, assuming that it has not already exercised its right to ban all new casinos in its area under clause 157. We will also make sure, for small and large casinos, that local development frameworks are updated to take account of the Bill, again assuming that a local authority has not imposed a blanket ban. All the usual safeguards and protections in planning law will be available to local authorities and local communities. Local communities will be consulted about any planning application for a new casino. They will make their views known, and there will be a public debate.
	Some Members and, as the hon. Member for Ryedale said, the Joint Committee, have expressed concern that some casinos may bypass the planning system because of the absence of a separate use class for casinos in planning law. The current law theoretically allows any leisure facility, such as a swimming pool or cinema, to be converted into a casino without triggering planning controls, although, obviously, a premises licence—therefore, the planning regime—would be invoked. After the Joint Committee's second report, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister undertook to review the possibility of a new use class for casinos and invited comments by the end of October. I am delighted to announce today that he and I have agreed in principle to require change of use to a casino to be subject to planning control. Subject to further detailed consideration of the outcome of the review and the usual consultation, we are minded to amend the use class order.

Mark Lazarowicz: Given that planning in Scotland is, of course, devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive, has my right hon. Friend had discussions with Scottish Ministers to ensure that similar planning protection is given to local authorities and communities there, and will she make sure that the Bill does not come into effect in Scotland until such changes are made in the relevant Scottish legislation?

Tessa Jowell: I assure my hon. Friend that there have been ongoing discussions with Scottish Ministers as the policy has developed, and that those discussions will continue.

Don Foster: I suspect that there will be pleasure in all parts of the House at the news that the Secretary of State just announced. Will she confirm that what she is announcing is a separate use category for all casinos, not just for the super-casinos?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, I can confirm that.
	Subject to further consultation, the process will proceed. I assure the House that the establishment of a separate use class is evidence that the Government do not want casinos to be allowed in by the back door. We aim to ensure that new casinos are taken forward through the development of the plan-making process.
	That is the triple lock that we are putting in place for casinos. The system is robust and will, I hope, reassure the House and concerned communities throughout the UK that there will be no proliferation of casinos, whether small, large or regional. The system will allow local communities to ban all casinos or to reject specific casino plans that do not measure up to the social responsibility criteria in clause 1 or the requirements of planning law.
	The nature of the new system is precisely why most economic and industry analysts expect the British market to be able to sustain only between 20 and 40 regional casinos. They have reached that conclusion because the policy that we have designed is so stringent and because they do not think that demand will be any higher. If demand is lower than analysts expected, there will be even fewer than 20 to 40 regional casinos.

Rob Marris: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. She mentioned that research indicates that the market will bear only up to 40 super-casinos. In that case, will she explain why having a cap in the Bill is undesirable? I would suggest that having one would be very desirable.

Tessa Jowell: Because there is a difference between a cap set by Government and the range of the likely levels of development set by industry forecasts based on the regulatory framework that the Government are establishing and the three elements of that regulatory system that I have set out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tessa Jowell: I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so, although I have taken many interventions, I now intend to make progress.
	There will be three opportunities for consultation, two of which, on the licensing policy and on planning permission, will be obligatory. There will also be the opportunity to consult on the possible use of the resolution.
	I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard the framework as well considered and robust. I assure hon. Members that on every aspect of the Bill the Government are listening and are open to proposals that will improve the protections in it. If hon. Members have suggestions about how the triple lock can be strengthened, proposals will be carefully examined at later stages.

Gordon Prentice: rose—

Tessa Jowell: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear that I was referring to the later stages of considering ways to strengthen the Bill.

Gordon Prentice: The Government have told the Joint Committee:
	"These unlimited prize machines are new to the UK, and there is no reliable evidence as to the impact of these machines."
	Surely that is a classic case for having some pilot casinos, so that we can test the impact of such fantastically large pay-outs.

Tessa Jowell: That is precisely why we rejected the recommendations of the Budd review, which would have introduced high-value, high-prize machines everywhere. That is also why we rejected the recommendation of the Joint Committee, which would have meant introducing such machines in all casinos, and why we are limiting them to regional casinos. I should also make clear, for my hon. Friend's information, that the way in which such machines operate and are manufactured—their design—will be subject to the oversight and scrutiny of the gambling commission. They may come from any part of the world, but they will have to conform to the British regulatory system. We will also monitor very closely any evidence that the availability of these machines is leading to an increase in problem gambling, in which case we will take action through the gambling commission to address the matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tessa Jowell: I shall not take any more interventions.
	I should like to move on quickly to protections for children; I know that the House attaches great importance to keeping children away from harmful gambling. Children should never get involved with gambling that will harm them.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has stated that she will not be giving way.

Tessa Jowell: That is in respect of the many hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate.
	There is no more important area to keep children away from harm than the internet. The evidence published over the summer that some British companies were failing in this area is profoundly disturbing. Any internet operator seeking a licence from the gambling commission will need to demonstrate precisely how it intends to exclude children from play.
	I want to say a few words about our approach to the lowest-prize gaming machines, which children can use. These machines are found in leisure sites such as seaside fairs and funfairs, but they are also available in a wide range of premises such as fish and chip shops and taxicab offices. I have received many representations from those who disagree with children being allowed to use gaming machines at all, and I have sympathy with those who observe that Britain is unusual in allowing children to play on any category of slot machine, but I think that it would be wrong of the Government to ignore the fact that children have been permitted to use amusement machines for many decades without clear evidence of an impact on the level of problem gambling among children.
	Such amusement machines have also been a traditional and well-loved part of the family leisure and seaside experience. We have not yet seen sufficiently compelling evidence to ban children from using these machines altogether. I know that the Joint Committee considered this matter very carefully and also reached that view. We must remain vigilant and cautious in relation to future risks, so I assure the House that on this issue and every other aspect of the Bill I will listen very carefully to the views of hon. Members.

Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. In the context of the many seaside communities around the country, is it not her experience, as it is mine and that of many hon. Members who represent those communities, that the family businesses that run such arcades have a high level of enforcement and make an important contribution to measures to stop antisocial behaviour at the seaside? Is that not the higher standard that we are trying to achieve in this Bill?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because those high standards of supervision are exercised in so many of these arcades that the evidence of problem gambling among children has not been produced. We want that vigilance to increase. That is why there is a reserve power in the Bill to be used should evidence of problems arise some time in the future, but as my hon. Friend made clear—I know that many hon. Members with constituency interests have found this—by and large, the regime in seaside arcades and family entertainment centres is very responsible. By withdrawing category D machines, as they are called, from fish and chip shops and minicab offices, we deal with the risks of ambient gambling and of exposing children to gambling.
	Let me move to a conclusion. Gambling is a legitimate industry that requires fair and proportionate regulation. It is an industry where the freedom to operate is important, but only when the public are properly protected. The Bill will protect the public at a time when technology threatens to overwhelm us with new, poorly regulated gambling opportunities. It provides vital new powers to protect children and put an end to socially irresponsible practices. It puts Parliament and the regulators back in control, with the power to toughen controls and the evidence on which to act. Crucially, it puts power firmly in the hands of local communities. New casinos will come to their area only if they want them—full stop.
	The Government know that adults should be allowed to exercise their personal freedom, that vulnerable people must be protected and that everyone should be protected from the unregulated consequences of the free market in an area such as gambling. We have always recognised that opinion on gambling cuts across normal party political divides. That is why we have sought to continue the long practice of the House of developing policy in an open and, where possible, a non-partisan way.
	That is why we welcomed many of the recommendations of the Joint Committee chaired so ably by the hon. Member for Ryedale. It is why we agree with the Leader of the Opposition when as Home Secretary, rather than as Leader of the Opposition jumping on the opportunistic bandwagon, he announced plans to free casinos and bingo halls from outdated and restrictive rules. It is why we agreed with the words of the then junior Home Office Minister responsible for gambling when he asked, "Why should we stop people choosing to spend their evenings playing roulette?" It is why we understood the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), the Opposition spokesman on culture, when in his day job as editor of The Spectator he wrote—I paraphrase: "Opposition to the Gambling Bill is nothing but low protectionism and in the case of the Daily Mail, a knee-jerk reaction to absolutely anything the Government does, dressed up as moral principle".
	The Government have approached the Bill with a determination to do what is best for the British public. The Bill will protect the weak and the vulnerable. It will give the United Kingdom the most modern and the toughest regulatory regime for gambling anywhere in the world. For those reasons I commend the Bill to the House.

John Whittingdale: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Gambling Bill since it fails to take account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Draft Bill with regard to regional casinos; consequently fails to impose adequate controls on the number and location of such casinos and on the number and type of gambling machines contained; does not give local authorities sufficient powers to reject specific casino applications; opens the door to an influx of overseas-owned super casinos in our towns and cities, close to where people live; and is likely to promote gambling and lead to further diversion of funds from the National Lottery, severe disadvantage to the existing UK gaming industry and a significant increase in problem gambling."
	May I begin by expressing our appreciation to the Secretary of State for her coming to the House to move the Second Reading? We are aware that she suffered a family bereavement recently and it is very good of her to be here this afternoon.
	As the Secretary of State suggested, the Bill has been a very long time in its gestation. It originates from the Budd report, which was published some three years ago, and since then there has been a huge amount of debate, scrutiny and consultation. I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). He and his Committee did a fantastic job in taking evidence from every possible interest group affected by the Bill, and there is no doubt that the Bill was much improved by his work. Indeed, it would be an even better Bill if the Government had chosen to accept all the Committee's recommendations.
	Given all the attention that the Bill has had over the past three years, it is extraordinary that at this eleventh hour the Secretary of State had to come to the House this afternoon to announce last-minute concessions so that she might be able to persuade some on her own side to give it their support in the vote this evening.

Tony Banks: Of course, if my right hon. Friend had not made any announcements, the hon. Gentleman would accuse her of being arrogant and insensitive to opinion, so she cannot win in either case. In view of the announcements that she made during her Second Reading speech, do the Government intend to withdraw their amendment opposing Second Reading?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is a little premature. We are not quite in Government yet. It is true that the Secretary of State has announced some concessions that we welcome, but there are still major points of concern that she has not addressed, which are spelled out in our amendment. The right hon. Lady has said that she is in listening mode. We hope that she will continue to listen during the debate and when we consider the Bill in Committee. There are still major flaws in the Bill.
	Until now, the history of gambling regulation has been one of gradual and cautious liberalisation. For 30 years, the UK industry has been a model of responsibility. It has been largely free of organised criminal activity and the level of problem gambling is much lower in this country than elsewhere. It was for that reason that the previous Conservative Government felt able to introduce measures to liberalise the rules.
	In 1994, the waiting period for membership of casinos was reduced from 48 hours to 24 hours and casinos were allowed to apply to serve alcohol after midnight and to accept debit cards, but not credit cards. Two years later, the Home Office issued a consultation paper on proposals to allow limited local advertising and to extend the number of permitted areas for casinos to 21, in order for them to be allowed to be established in some seaside resorts and conference towns. I point out to the Secretary of State, in response to her remarks at the end of her speech, that the Government said specifically at that time that there was a need to maintain tight control of casino gaming and that they did not support allowing resort-style casinos in this country.

David Wright: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the Conservative Government accepted a proposal to allow 21 more casinos in 1996–97. Thankfully, that was stopped by the Labour Government when they took office. Does he agree that the Conservative proposal for new casinos was to be achieved through deregulation, whereas this Bill is primary legislation? The Conservative proposal would have been legislation through the back door, rather than constructive consultation within the industry.

John Whittingdale: The measures to which I referred, which were implemented by the previous Conservative Government, were subject to enormous consultation. They represented a modest step forward. We are faced today not with a modest step forward but with a massive change that will completely alter the nature of gambling in this country. The hon. Gentleman refers to the industry having been consulted. The industry is deeply unhappy with many of the recommendations and feels, in particular, that the new rules suddenly announced in response to the second report of the Scrutiny Committee were subject to no consultation whatsoever.
	There is much in the Bill that we support. There is no doubt that during the past seven years a huge change has taken place. In particular, there has been the growth of interactive and online gambling, which is completely unregulated. We therefore agree that the time has come for gambling legislation to be overhauled and brought up to date.
	We welcome the establishment of the gambling commission as a new unified regulator for betting, gaming and lotteries. However, the reported decision to locate the headquarters of the commission in Newcastle has led to complaints that it will be far away from the industry that it is regulating. I understand that the chairman of the Gaming Board for Great Britain has attacked the proposal. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm whether that is the case.
	We welcome the creation of the new offence of inviting, permitting or causing a child to gamble, as well as the action taken by the industry to establish a responsibility—

Kevan Jones: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman has got against Newcastle. I can say, as a former councillor, that it is a fine city with at least three casinos, two of which were established under the Tyne and Wear development corporation, an invention of the previous Conservative Government.

John Whittingdale: The concern of the chairman of the Gaming Board is that very few of the existing members of the board will want to transfer to Newcastle. That is a serious concern.
	An area where regulation is most urgently needed is that of remote gaming. Gambling on the internet has become a huge business in the space of a few years, and it is predicted that the industry will be worth £10 billion globally within the next five years. At present, such gambling can take place only on websites hosted outside the UK—it is, of course, impossible to stop such gambling, as has been found in Australia and the United States, where they have tried to do so. Many offshore sites offer no player protection and few safeguards against under-age access or criminal activity. It therefore makes sense to have a licensed and regulated UK-based industry, where players can be certain that their bets will be honoured and that operators will be above board. We therefore support the provisions of the Bill dealing with remote gambling and agree that they must be enacted as soon as possible.
	Other elements of the Bill concern us. The Government's attitude towards fixed-odds betting terminals remains uncertain. Will those machines be treated like other category B machines and allowed in adult gaming centres and bingo halls? Having listened to the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon, that concern will grow because she appeared unwilling to accept the agreement between the Association of British Bookmakers and the Gaming Board.
	Equally, the point at which users of betting exchanges will be considered as conducting a business—which could potentially make them subject to licensing requirements—rather than as recreational users is still unclear. The bingo industry is also looking for reassurance that games currently permitted under section 21 of the Gaming Act 1968 will be allowed to continue. We will seek clarification on all those issues in Committee.
	We also have reservations about the Government's decision to disallow the lowest stake category D machines from non-licensed premises such as fish and chip shops and minicab offices. Although the Joint Committee suggested that approach, little evidence exists that the existing arrangement has resulted in harm, yet the proposal will deprive many small businesses of an important source of revenue.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the powers taken in the Bill effectively to drive out traditional, family seaside arcades make it impossible for those businesses to plan ahead? The contradiction between the highly restrictive powers at the small end of the market and liberalism at the heavy, casino end of the spectrum wrecks any attempt at fair-mindedness in the Bill. Will my hon. Friend go a little bit further in his determination to protect the traditional seaside arcade against an uncomprehending Government?

John Whittingdale: My right hon. Friend speaks for many operators in seaside arcades and amusement centres who are deeply concerned about the powers in the Bill to prevent children from continuing to use machines such as penny-falls and cranes. The Secretary of State has said that the power will be reserved, but many people feel that there is no evidence that such machines have ever led to any harm. While that reserved power is in the Bill, such people will continue to believe that the Government will impose controls at a future date. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who have all raised the same point, that we continue to believe that that particular clause is unnecessary and that it should be removed.

Henry Bellingham: This morning, I went around a number of arcades in my constituency, including one in Hunstanton. I spent a certain amount of money playing with the crane machines and the pushing machines. I heard from the owners of that arcade that those machines do not corrupt; all those machines do is give a lot of amusement to young children, which is an historical tradition in seaside resorts. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must make their plans clear because such arcades currently face a great deal of uncertainty?

John Whittingdale: I agree with my hon. Friend and hope that he won a teddy bear from the crane. However, I do not think that the experience will have corrupted him or led him to gambling addiction. It is extraordinary that the Government appear determined to take powers to prevent children from using cranes and penny-fall machines, when they are prepared to open the door to huge regional casinos filled with up to 1,250 unlimited prize machines.
	I come now to the most controversial issue—the measures further to liberalise the laws relating to casinos. Conservative Members accept that there is a case for a further relaxation in some aspects, such as restrictions on advertising, the confinement of casinos to permitted areas and the 24-hour delay before membership is granted. However, regional casinos of the kind proposed have never been seen before in this country—nor, until now, have we permitted the introduction of category A gaming machines. Those machines, which have unlimited stakes and prizes, have proved to be the biggest cause of problem gambling in Australia following the liberalisation that took place there, so it is absolutely essential to proceed cautiously in that respect.

Jim Knight: Is it not the case that the relaxation of restrictions on casinos was included in the White Paper that was published in March, and that the March edition of "Conservative News" welcomed plans to liberalise the laws on gambling? What has changed since then?

John Whittingdale: As I said, we are not opposed to liberalisation of the laws of gambling, but we believe that we need to proceed cautiously. The announcements that the Government have made since the publication of the Joint Committee report have given rise to our greatest concerns, because they show that in those areas the Government are clearly not proceeding cautiously.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Tessa Jowell: rose—

John Whittingdale: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Tessa Jowell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has given way to Kevan Jones.

Kevan Jones: In fact, the Government are proceeding cautiously, because the Bill will not liberalise high-jackpot machines, but will limit them to certain casinos— unlike in Australia, where things have gone wrong because of their unlimited use.

John Whittingdale: The Bill takes us from a situation in which there are no such machines to one in which there may be 50,000. That is not, in my view, cautious liberalisation—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State asks where we get the figure of 50,000 from. She has said that there will be up to 40 regional casinos. There may be up to 1,250 machines in each of those, so that equals 50,000.

Tessa Jowell: It is absolutely essential that this debate is conducted on the basis of fact, not fantasy, myth and mistaken beliefs. The expectation is that about 10 per cent. of machines in regional casinos will be category A machines that do not have a specified stake or prize. If there is any evidence that they are causing harm, it will be for the gambling commission to reduce the stake and the prize. That deals with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Whether in relation to this or to my very clear assurances on seaside arcades, it is important that he sticks to the facts instead of writing a novel.

John Whittingdale: The fact is that regional casinos will be allowed up to 1,250 machines, which, as they can be of any category, could all be category A; it is not sufficient for the Secretary of State merely to say that her expectation is that they will not be. I hope that she will take seriously my suggestions on how further limits could be imposed.

Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been following these issues for many years. The Government have not accepted the concerns expressed by many people in the industry and on both sides of this House and in the upper House, as reflected in the excellent report by the Joint Committee chaired by our hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), that if the Government's proposals are proceeded with we will lose the regenerative effect of the casinos on some of our run-down resorts, whereas if the Committee's recommendations were accepted we could ensure that the regenerative effect occurs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is that the Government have ensured that there can be huge casinos in major cities, not only in resorts?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I wish to deal with that point later.
	I want to return to my point about the Government's original intention, which, as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) suggested, appeared to be based on cautious liberalisation. We were first told that there would be a limited number of resort destination casinos and that they were so called because they would be located in seaside resorts and away from centres of population. Limiting the accessibility of jackpot machines was said at the time to be crucial to the Government's objective of protecting children and the vulnerable. However, the Government have been seduced by the prospect of the millions of pounds of investment being offered by the overseas operators who want to come and set up in this country. According to some of those companies to which I have spoken, they are willing to invest tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds in each one of the new mega-casinos; in doing so, they would provide thousands of jobs. Of course that is a tempting prospect, but those companies are not proposing to make that investment out of altruism. The return on their investment will come from the 20,000 people they are hoping to attract through the doors of each casino every week.

Chris Bryant: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had time to look at the report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which looked at the original draft of the Gambling Bill some time before the Joint Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), produced its report. The Select Committee—which included several of the hon. Gentleman's Conservative colleagues, none of whom demurred for an instant at the time, although they are now doing so—listened to the Bishop of Blackburn putting very clearly the argument in favour of the regeneration of Blackpool. He wanted to see that financial investment being made. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the bishop has succumbed to temptation?

John Whittingdale: I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the proposals on the table today are very different from those that were on the table when his Select Committee was examining the issue. Secondly, he cites the Bishop of Blackburn, but I hope that he is not suggesting that the Churches generally support the Bill. He only has to look at the remarks of a number of archbishops, and of representatives of the Methodist Church, the Salvation Army and many other religious groups, to see that they are bitterly opposed to many of the provisions in the Bill.

Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that while the Bishop of Blackburn might want to see Blackpool being regenerated through the possibility of one resort casino being established there, that is a very different matter from splattering casinos around every major city and town in the United Kingdom? There are so many questions that need to be answered on the Bill, particularly in regard to the super-jackpot machines. If we were to pilot these new casinos in a small number of areas—perhaps Blackpool could be one—we could test their impact on the country.

John Whittingdale: That very sensible suggestion has also been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Julie Kirkbride: I think that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) chose to misinterpret the conclusions reached by the Conservative members of the Select Committee, of whom I was one at the time to which he referred. The simple fact is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has said, establishing a resort destination casino in Blackpool while we test the market is one thing, but introducing casinos with category A gaming machines in 40 cities across the country is very different.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out her position, and to the other Conservative members of the Committee. As several of my hon. Friends have suggested, the original hope that this proposal might lead to the regeneration of seaside resorts such as Blackpool will actually be undermined by the proposals before us, as there is no doubt that the operators of the casinos would much rather locate them in central Manchester or Liverpool, for example, than in Blackpool, if they had the opportunity to do so.

Joan Humble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he is talking about Blackpool. Does he believe that the regional casinos could lead to the regeneration of towns such as Blackpool? If so, will he tell me how his voting against this Second Reading would enable that to happen?

John Whittingdale: We are concerned that the original intention to locate the casinos in seaside resorts and other places that need regeneration will be undermined by the shift in the Government's strategy towards locating them in centres of population. That is one of our deep concerns about the Bill, and one of the reasons why we cannot support it this evening.

Jim Knight: The logic seems to be that the Bill will receive its Second Reading tonight and that we shall then have an opportunity to improve it in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman supports the 90 per cent. of the Bill that is in favour of protecting people from gambling, I cannot understand why he is opposing it on Second Reading.

John Whittingdale: If the hon. Gentleman reads the reasoned amendment that we have tabled, he will see that it sets out clearly why we cannot support the Bill tonight. As I conceded earlier, the Bill contains some proposals that we support, but at the moment, it is fatally flawed in several respects, and there is a real danger that it will lead to an increase in gambling addiction and will fail to provide the protection that the Government claim that it will provide for children and the vulnerable.

Andrew Selous: Does not my hon. Friend think it strange that the Government pray in aid the need for super-casinos to bring economic regeneration to many parts of the country when they might look instead to sports, film and arts venues, particularly for young people who are poorly served, if they really want to see such regeneration?

John Whittingdale: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	Why have the Government decided to throw caution to the wind, give up on the slow and gradual approach to liberalisation, and instead fling open the doors? The first indication that we had was that the new approach represents a pot of gold for the Treasury. The Secretary of State said this afternoon that her adviser's comment that the tax regime would be revenue-neutral had been somehow misunderstood. In fact, the Minister for Media and Heritage told a conference last year that a key aim of the Bill was to raise tax revenue for the Treasury. We also know that the parliamentary Labour party brief on the Bill states:
	"Parliamentary Labour Party members should bear in mind that some of the towns and cities that want to use a casino as part of a broader leisure, tourism and regeneration strategy are key Labour seats".
	Those are the real reasons why the Government have abandoned their previous approach and are now desperate to get this Bill on the statute book before the next election.
	The Secretary of State has said that she is prepared to listen to Members' concerns during the passage of the Bill. Many of our concerns, however, were identified by the all-party scrutiny Committee in its report in July. It proposed specific safeguards against proliferation, yet those were rejected by the Government. If the Secretary of State had listened at the time, many of the problems could have been averted. In particular, the scrutiny Committee proposed limiting the number of casinos by increasing the minimum non-gambling area from 1,500 to 4,000 sq m. Doing so would have helped to ensure that casinos were closer to leisure complexes offering a different range of attractions, rather than simply giant gambling dens. More importantly, it would have increased the size of total investment required, which in the Committee's view would have limited the likely number built to about 20 to 25.
	The Secretary of State has said this afternoon that her proposals will result in 20 to 40 regional casinos being built. The truth is that the Bill does not provide for any upper limit, and as the Government's response to the scrutiny Committee states,
	"estimates of the number of regional casinos likely to be developed are necessarily speculative".
	That is why Members on both sides of the House are saying that if the Secretary of State is proved wrong—by her admission in her report, she might be—there is a case for having some kind of cap on the figure so that we do not see a proliferation of such regional casinos, which are of a kind that we have never seen previously.

Rob Marris: In spite of the hon. Gentleman's reservations about other less controversial parts of the Bill, would he and his colleagues support the Bill if it included such a cap?

John Whittingdale: That would be a considerable step forward, but the Secretary of State has already rejected it this afternoon, so it does not seem likely. I hope that the Secretary of State and Ministers will address several concerns in Committee. We will examine it when it comes back from Committee to see whether it is improved.

Dave Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not the number of casinos that matters? We all know that the vast majority of people can gamble without becoming addicted, but a small number become addicted and need help and support. Would it not be better for him to concentrate on, for example, controlling credit betting and ensuring that services are available to help the small number of people who would become addicted, regardless of the number of casinos, or of any other gambling establishments?

John Whittingdale: There are steps that need to be taken, particularly to try to increase the protection available to those people, a point to which I shall return.

John Bercow: This is, after all, a Second Reading debate on the Bill's general principles. Given that it seeks a balance between freedom and protection, that the Joint Committee said that there is no justification whatsoever for delaying its introduction, and that my hon. Friend has himself said that arcane and anomalous gambling laws are holding back our businesses, how does he answer the charge that a decision to oppose the Bill outright on Second Reading would represent not principled opposition, but political expediency?

John Whittingdale: I answer that charge by saying that the Bill as drafted has got it wrong. The Government have had ample opportunity to build in the safeguards for which hon. Members from all parts of the House have been calling—in particular, those set out clearly in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and his Committee. If the Government had been willing to listen then, the Bill would have been considerably better and more deserving of support. However, they were not willing to listen, which is why we are unable to support it this evening.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Whittingdale: I will give way on the subject of caps.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Several hon. Members have argued that the Bill should include a cap on the number of super-casinos, but is that not illogical? Only if the Government or a central body decide the location of each super-casino can one impose a national cap. If we allow local and regional authorities to make those decisions, it is difficult to set a national cap.

John Whittingdale: The Government have already said that regional planning bodies will play a key role in the process. It would be perfectly sensible to suggest an initial cap of, say, one or two casinos per region. It would then be for the regional planning bodies to decide where they should be located. That would represent co-operation between national Government and regional planning bodies, and it would be up to local authorities to determine particular sites. That seems a perfectly sensible way forward.
	The Secretary of State laid great stress on the role of local authorities and their powers to reject casino developments. However, it is difficult to see a local authority resisting the temptation of the tax revenue and potential planning gain that an investment of this size could bring, especially if it takes the view that if it turned it down, the neighbouring authority would simply take the benefit instead.

Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman share with the House his views about whether planning circular 1/97 of the national planning policy should apply? It clearly states:
	"Planning obligations should never be used as a means of securing for the local community a share of the profits of the development".
	If it should apply, does that not mean that regeneration benefits will be much smaller than the Government say?

John Whittingdale: I do think that it should apply, and I have been disturbed by one or two reports suggesting that it may have been contravened.
	The one concession that the Secretary of State made this afternoon, which is welcome, was her agreement to introduce a separate use class for all casinos. A number of us were concerned that one of the drivers towards proliferation would be the ability of leisure facilities within the same use class to convert to casinos. So she appears at least to have closed off one option this afternoon, and we welcome that.
	Another concern about which the scrutiny Committee heard evidence was that one of the major contributors to increased problem gambling is convenience. Professor Peter Collins said:
	"from a problem gambling point of view, there is no doubt that it is better not to locate casinos in town centres. There is no question of that".
	It is for that reason that we in the scrutiny Committee regard it as essential that regional casinos should not be on high streets, but located away from where people live. We had understood that that was originally the Secretary of State's own view, but in deciding the most suitable areas for regional casinos, regional planning bodies have been told explicitly that they must take account of planning guidance that requires major new facilities to promote the vitality and viability of existing town centres.
	The letter that the Minister sent to the scrutiny Committee confirmed that PPS6 and PPG13 together
	"direct casinos towards the most central and accessible locations".
	He even went as far as to suggest that any applications that did not follow that guidance were likely to be called in. The scrutiny Committee concluded that there was an inconsistency between the policy objectives of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and those of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I have to say that "inconsistency" seems to me to be a considerable understatement. If the Secretary of State is to deliver the Bill's objective of protecting children and the vulnerable, it is essential that the planning guidance for the location of new casinos should be changed.
	Another difference between the draft Bill and the one before us today relates to new category A, so-called "million pound" jackpot machines. Originally, the Government proposed that they should be allowed in all casinos and be subject only to the machine-to-table ratio. They also proposed that in regional casinos there should be no limit on numbers at all. Although it was not a recommendation of the scrutiny Committee, the Government then decided to restrict category A machines to regional casinos alone and impose a cap on the number of machines at 1,250. By doing that, they will increase the attraction of regional casinos and severely disadvantage existing UK operators. Those companies rightly point out that they will be unable to compete if they are prevented from offering any category A machines in their existing casinos while the new regional ones can contain up to 1,250 such machines. The pressure on them to convert into regional casinos will be enormous and will lead to still more proliferation.
	The answer, as the scrutiny Committee again pointed out, is to allow a limited number of category A machines into small and large casinos, or alternatively to increase the maximum stake and prize that category B machines can offer. That would help to address the problem of the cliff edge that the Government have created between large and regional casinos.
	As I said earlier, however, we also believe that there is a case for further limiting the number of category A machines. Most operators predict that the maximum number of 1,250 machines in regional casinos will, as the Secretary of State confirmed, contain a mix of different categories. We believe that, within the overall limit, it makes sense to impose a further restriction on category A machines so that we can monitor the effect of their introduction in this country.
	There is one more measure of protection that we believe is necessary. At present, the membership requirement for UK casinos allows operators to bar from their premises those who are known to be problem gamblers. It is another important safeguard to try to stop gambling addiction. Yet by scrapping the membership requirements, that protection will be lost. The lack of any form of identification requirement also removes a vital safeguard against money laundering. Indeed, it may well be in breach of the EU's third directive on money laundering. According to the press yesterday, a senior civil servant wrote to American casino companies asking what dispensations they wanted under the legislation. The companies then made it clear—

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman may want to withdraw that comment and I undertake to write to him separately about it. The allegation is untrue.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her assurance that those reports were untrue. I, of course, accept her word on that, but it does not change the fact that the Government are proposing to exempt large casinos from the requirement to identify those who are involved in transactions of more than £700. I would be interested to know whether the Secretary of State also denies the report that the Association of Chief Police Officers has protested about that. Is that also wrong?

Tessa Jowell: I am very happy to say that, given that one of the objectives of the Bill is to keep gambling crime-free, we have of course consulted the police throughout. Discussions on the money laundering directive are a matter for the Treasury and still continue. In its final shape, the Bill will ensure that we keep crime out—money laundering or any other crime that could infiltrate gambling in this country.

John Whittingdale: The most effective way of preventing money laundering is to retain the requirement that those undertaking large transactions must provide identification. Under the Bill, that safeguard will be lost. The safeguard against money laundering and the membership requirement, which would provide an additional layer of protection for those who are suffering from gambling addiction, are to be removed simply because they do not happen to satisfy the American business model.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman is talking about measures to protect vulnerable people from being seduced by gambling. There has been a furore in the popular press about the Bill having the effect of increasing and enhancing gambling among vulnerable people, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if that same popular press were really concerned about protecting people from being seduced by gambling, they could play their part by removing the racing sections from their papers, which not only encourage people to gamble, but advise them on how to do so?

John Whittingdale: We are concerned about the Bill partly because it represents a completely new and different form of gambling from anything that we have seen before. It is for that reason that we are urging caution. I am interested that the Secretary of State said that my comments on the membership requirement were incorrect. In that case, perhaps she will reconsider whether it would be wise to retain a membership requirement both to tackle problem gambling and to deal with the danger of money laundering.

Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Whittingdale: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must wind up my remarks.
	The Bill initially enjoyed widespread support, but by refusing to listen to those who have advocated a cautious approach combined with sensible safeguards, the Government have managed to unite almost everyone against it. People are against the Bill, not because of snobbery but because it will disadvantage responsible and long-standing UK companies, lead to a proliferation of casinos in our towns and cities and risk creating a massive increase in problem gambling. The Secretary of State has said that she is listening and is prepared to amend the Bill. It is a pity that she was not willing to do so earlier.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which will apply from now on.

Frank Dobson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a difficult task introducing the Bill today. As we have been good friends for more than 33 years, I hope that we will remain so at the end of this debate and of future ones. I feel fairly confident that she was not referring to me in her reference to a whiff of snobbery, and I hope that she will excuse me from any charge of opportunism.
	I support most of the Bill because we clearly need to modernise the laws on gambling, but I oppose the proposal to make it easier for multinational casinos to rip off hard-working British families. There is no public demand for the provisions in the Bill. Before there was any unstimulated demand, shall we say, opinion polls showed that more than 90 per cent. of the population believed that there were enough opportunities for gambling already. People have come to my advice surgeries about housing, schools, pensions, passports and policing, but in 25 years I cannot recall one person coming to see me because they wanted us to increase the opportunities for gambling. I have, however, had quite a lot of people coming to see me because their lives have been ruined by their spouse's gambling away all the family income. We should not do anything that is likely to increase the opportunities for that. There is no public demand for the changes, so we appear to be changing the law to make it easier for casino companies to tempt hard-working British families to lose their money so that they can make profits. It is worth remembering that the casinos cannot make profits unless most punters lose their money.
	In future, we shall permit extra temptations that are not currently on offer. It will be possible to walk into a casino with no cooling-off period of 24 hours. There will be an enormous number of machines and prizes of possibly £1 million in those places. We are lifting the restriction on advertising so that casinos can deliberately stimulate demand that does not exist without such stimulation. That will increase gambling, especially through slot machines, and the evidence shows that slot machines are a major source of problem gambling and of people getting hooked.
	I am not only worried about those who may get hooked on gambling. I believe that, at a time when we are discussing the need for more people to save, be careful with money and put money aside for their pensions and for the future, it is foolish of the Government to say, "We're going to make it easier for you to blow it at a casino."
	The Government claim that there will not be a large increase in the number of casinos but just 20 or 40 new ones. Ministers have referred to those figures as "a modest increase" on the existing 134. An increase of 40 on 134 is 30 per cent. If the trade unions presented a proposal for a 30 per cent. increase in the national minimum wage, I do not believe that the Cabinet would regard it as a modest increase that should be approved.

Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Dobson: I would rather get on because others want to speak.
	The problem is not only 40 more casinos but that they will be much larger. If they are allowed 1,250 slot machines each, it means, as I understand it, that each new one will have more slot machines than those in all the existing casinos put together. That increases the opportunity for gambling. The bigger prizes on offer make it more likely that people will gamble and that there will be more gambling.
	We are told that the Bill will permit the regeneration of inner cities. Have we reached the stage when the only way in which we can regenerate our inner cities depends on inviting American casino companies to bail us out? That is not the best way to achieve regeneration. If we stick it on top of 24-hour drinking, the combination will not greatly assist the prevailing situation in many of our inner cities.
	We are told that there will be not only a casino built at each location but hotels, restaurants and entertainment facilities, as if they would tempt people away from the tables and machines. They will not. The hotels, restaurants and entertainment will be there to attract people to the casinos so that they go to the restaurant and afterwards to the tables; stay at the hotel and go to the tables, and go to a show and subsequently to the tables. Things that are presented as a means of amelioration are there to make the casinos more attractive.

David Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Dobson: I should prefer not to because others want to speak.
	I have every sympathy with the people of Blackpool and of other holiday resorts. It would be a good idea if the Government acknowledged that Blackpool and one or two other places might benefit from one of the new casinos. They could choose the places—I have never objected to central Government's making a few decisions now and again. If that happened, we could ascertain how the casinos worked. A private Bill that covered several places could subsequently be promoted or a measure could be introduced from the centre. That might show us what could be done and bring benefits to those areas.
	However, if there are to be big casinos in every major centre of population, the holiday resort casinos can forget the massive improvement in takings that they expect because people will not go to Blackpool if they can go to a casino nearer home in Manchester. All the points that I have made so far concern the public. Let me say something about the harm that I believe the proposals are doing to the reputation of the Labour party and the Labour Government. They are putting off a lot of people whom we would do well not to put off—a lot of concerned people who are already unhappy about one or two aspects of the Government's policies.
	People come up to me and ask "Why is he doing it?" I think they are referring to the Prime Minister. They consider the Bill to be contrary to the Labour party's normal slightly paternalistic, slightly puritan image. It is also rather at variance with the greater emphasis on religious belief that has been common in Government in recent times. And it is contrary to things that the Chancellor and others are saying about the need to save and put money aside for pensions.
	There is no public demand for the Bill. The demand is coming from American gambling companies. They may have changed; but in the eyes of the British public—who may remember films made years ago—they are connected with organised crime, money laundering, drugs and prostitution. That is the sort of word association that occurs to people, and I think it is very damaging to our party. It does make people wonder "Why are they doing it?" I think that that question itself is very damaging to us as a party.
	I believe that the Bill would be bad for the country, bad for hard-working families and bad for the party. It is the worst possible political combination: it is both wrong and unpopular.

Don Foster: I join the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in thanking the Secretary of State, and indeed expressing admiration of her for coming here today in the light of her recent bereavement.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to praise the work of the Joint Committee, and in particular its Chairman, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). The Secretary of State has accused the Bill's opponents of grabbing opportunism from a passing bandwagon. She fails to understand that many people who initially supported much more of the Bill were influenced by the Government's failure to note some of the Committee's recommendations.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford summarised his party's concerns. We share many of them, as our amendment makes clear. It explains why we will vote against Second Reading, notwithstanding one welcome U-turn by the Secretary of State about which I shall say more later.
	As others have observed, much of the Bill is welcome. It provides a much-needed updating of existing legislation. Like many other people, we are pleased about the stronger, broader regulation that will result from the replacement of the Gaming Board with the gambling commission. It will be stronger because the commission will have greater powers to rescind licences, impose higher fines and enter and inspect premises. It will be broader because it will cover remote gambling such as internet, betting-exchange and interactive television gambling.

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to acknowledge one concession made by the Secretary of State, among a number of others. But how can he say that he supports at least 90 per cent. of the Bill, and then vote against its Second Reading? He could try to make further improvements during a Committee stage that he will deny the Bill if it is not passed tonight.

Don Foster: First, the Secretary of State's concessions are not actually in the Bill. Secondly, we are concerned about many other matters, which I shall enumerate shortly. Thirdly, as I shall explain, in many instances we feel that the Government's basic premises are seriously flawed. For those three reasons, we will vote against the Bill.
	I was referring to the need to have control over remote gambling. The Secretary of State rightly points to the 3 million to 4 million people involved in internet gambling. We note that those involved in providing it—for example, Sportingbet—are reporting significant increases in turnover. Yet at the same time it is deeply worrying to learn that it is very easy for children and young people to become involved in that. A recent survey showed that an 11-year-old girl was able to register with 30 out of 37 internet gambling sites, so we accept entirely that regulation is needed to protect the vulnerable and to ensure integrity.

Bill Tynan: If the hon. Gentleman sincerely believes that the Bill cures the problems to which he has just referred, how can he support opposing the Bill at this stage? I could understand his party voting against it on Third Reading if the improvements that he desired had not been made, but how can he possible justify it at this time?

Don Foster: I think that I have already answered that question in reply to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), but while 90 per cent. of the Bill may well be good, and I believe that it is, if the 10 per cent. is so very bad and continues to be so, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not accept that we should support it, and I want to deal now with my serious concerns about it.
	May I refer in passing to the broader remit of the gambling commission? I welcome the fact that it will require casinos and others to have higher standards in respect of social responsibility and that those involved have agreed to a target of a £3 million contribution to a fund to alleviate some of the problems caused by gambling, but I remind the House that that figure is only 0.035 per cent. of the £8.5 billion that is spent annually in this country on gambling, and I suspect that it is unlikely to prove to be a high enough figure, so I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will have reserve powers to impose a levy if that is the case.
	To return to the point that has just been made, I am concerned about some aspects of the Bill, particularly those proposals relating to the new super-casinos and the enormous number of unlimited-prize machines that there might be within them. We are worried about the likely number of such casinos, their location, the speed of their introduction and the controls over them. We are particularly worried about the introduction of the unlimited-prize machines in such large numbers without any significant research having been done into the likely effects that they will have on problem gambling. The Secretary of State has told us that only 10 per cent. of machines in super-casinos may be of this type, but even if that is the case—I suspect that it will be far more—we will still be introducing 5,000 of these machines in this country without any sort of trial. I am also worried that the Secretary of State in response to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that it will be for the gambling commission to decide what that percentage will be. For the sake of anyone thinking of investing in these new super-casinos, I hope that the gambling commission will be up and running and have made a decision on what that proportion will be, because presumably that will directly impact upon a potential investor's decision whether to set up such a casino.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman could have made many of these criticisms when the White Paper was published in March, yet in a Liberal Democrat press release his colleague, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), said:
	"At last Britain is moving with the times, giving British resorts the opportunity to challenge America as a destination for casino holidays."
	Does he now disagree with his hon. Friend?

Don Foster: No, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the end of that press release, which points to the issue of problem gambling. He read it out accurately and I am grateful to him for doing that because my hon. Friend specifically referred to destination casinos. One of the key problems is that the Secretary of State and her Government have changed the clear recommendation on destination casinos that my hon. Friend was supporting at the time.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman said that he realised that online betting and access by children to that is a real problem, with which I agree. Why therefore will he and other Liberal Democrats vote against the regulation of that tonight? Thanks very much for giving us another soundbite for a leaflet.

Don Foster: Thank you very much to the hon. Gentleman for giving Liberal Democrats the soundbite that he is happy to go ahead with unrestricted regional casinos that 93 per cent. of the British public do not want. Of course, if he intends to vote against the Bill, he has the same problem that he alleges I have.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman must wait until I make my contribution. I shall certainly argue for some limitations on the Bill. Is that not what he should be doing, rather than throwing everything out, including some very welcome provisions to protect the most vulnerable in our society, namely children, which clearly the Liberal Democrats do not want to do tonight?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it—but he is entitled to do that.
	We have some concerns and some suggestions about how the Bill could be improved. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, recent opinion polls show that people do not want increased gambling opportunities, not least because of the inevitable increase in problem gambling that they will create. Many people do not want regeneration in their area if it comes on the back of creating significant misery for many people locally.
	We already have more than 300,000 gamblers—probably far more—and the Bill as it stands will inevitably increase that significantly. Everyone seems to believe that—every independent commentator—except the Secretary of State. The whole House will surely have been surprised when she said to the Joint Committee:
	"If this legislation gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation."
	We have had rash statements before. We all remember the Deputy Prime Minister's promise to reduce the number of car journeys within five years: a tall order, but hold me to it, he said. Many of us will recall John Patten—now Lord Patten—making the wonderful promise that he would eat his hat garnished if he did not meet his targets in relation to grant-maintained schools. The real question is what the Secretary of State will do if the Bill fails under the criteria that she set. I am sure that we all desperately hope that it will not involve her parading as a croupier. She at least tempered what she had said when she told my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that nobody could say that there would not be at least one more problem gambler. I suspect that there will be far more.

Bob Russell: Will my hon. Friend ask the House to reflect on the fact that 300,000, which is the number of problem gamblers already known about, is three times the number of soldiers in Her Majesty's armed forces? That puts in context the sheer volume of problem gamblers already out there.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to one way of showing just how large a number a third of a million people is. He will be well aware that the clear evidence is that with the introduction of what could be 5,000 highly addictive category A machines the number is likely to increase significantly. It is not only the public and politicians of all parties who are concerned about this but the British businesses that will be affected. The Government said in the White Paper that
	"the legitimate interests of all parties should be taken fully into account".
	It is strange, then—perhaps the Minister can explain it to the House—that the Government plan to remove category D machines from fish and chip shops and taxi offices but there has been no consultation whatever with representatives of those businesses, although estimates show that up to 600 of them are likely to close as a result. In passing, he might explain what the difference is between ambient gambling in a fish and chip shop or taxi office and in a motorway service station. Many people are confused about that aspect of the legislation.
	Businesses are also concerned about what appears to be preferential treatment for American casino operators. The British casino industry is understandably worried that the odds are being significantly stacked in favour of the Americans. It is the British businesses, not the American ones, who have, over 40 years, built an enviable record of integrity, fairness and social responsibility. They have raised issues of integrity about membership. We are not talking about a return to the 24-hour rule, but about having at least a membership requirement so that a record is kept of all those who enter premises. Surely the Minister and the Secretary of State have been consulting the police, and I would be amazed if the Minister tells us that the police and others have all said a membership registration scheme would not assist on money laundering or on the issues of problem gambling.
	The final version of the Bill came as a huge shock to many people, including the casino industry, and there are more shocks still to come. The Bill contains many references to numerous, as yet unavailable, codes and regulations and to 32 additional powers for the Secretary of State. Many people have real concerns, some of them very basic.
	The Government's arguments for more casinos do not seem to add up. They cannot even tell us how many casinos there are. Last week, on the Floor of the House, the Prime Minister told us there are 120. The DCMS website says there are 122. In response to the Joint Committee, Lord McIntosh said there were 126. More recently, in a press release, he said there were 130. The House of Commons Library, whose figures I prefer to believe, says that the figure is none of those, but is 131. If the Government cannot even get the basic facts right, how can we have confidence in other things they say?
	We have been told that the Bill would be revenue-neutral, but that statement has been withdrawn, which is not surprising because the regulatory impact assessment says that the Bill should
	"increase casino turnover and therefore (all being equal) tax/duty revenue".
	There is confusion, too, about the number of jobs that will be created. The Prime Minister, again on the Floor of the House last week, and in a press briefing, said there would be 80,000. The Secretary of State says in articles in today's papers that there will be 85,000. Leaving that aside, in the run-up to the Bill jobs have actually been lost. British gaming machine manufacturing jobs have been lost to America, and further job losses are predicted. The Henley Centre claims that there will be "no significant employment gains" as a result of the Bill. It argues that
	"certain sectors of the leisure industry, for example pubs, restaurants and hotels, will be put under great pressure in their competing leisure offerings with casinos."
	In other words, it is likely that super-casinos will merely displace jobs, not create new ones.
	If the super-casinos are going to take away some existing gambling business, a threat is also posed to such things as the national lottery. What will be the impact on good causes? As I said at Question Time, what will be the impact on our Olympic funding package? The regulatory impact assessment is quite clear that there will be implications. Even if national lottery sales decline by just 2.5 per cent., that would lead to a loss of almost £50 million a year for the good causes, of which £27 million would be from the Olympic lottery fund. Over five years, that figure would be more than £100 million. The Minister must explain how the funding gap will be closed in our plans for the Olympic bid.
	The case for regeneration, however seductive it may be, frankly has not been made.

Joan Humble: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a report commissioned by the Northwest Development Agency and the Lancashire West partnership for the eight councils in west Lancashire on the regeneration potential of regional casinos? It has identified a substantial increase in net jobs and investment into the local area, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads it before he makes further comments about regeneration.

Don Foster: I am grateful. The honest and truthful answer is that I was not aware of the report, but if the hon. Lady will make it available, I shall be delighted to read it. My point, though, is a simple one: there are conflicting bits of evidence about the issue, and it is wrong of the Government to claim categorically that all the additional jobs will be created when there is conflicting evidence about that. Surely, as many hon. Members have suggested, a far better way forward, adopting the precautionary principle, would be to move slowly, possibly by having just one new super-casino in each region. Then, we will have an opportunity to judge whether the hon. Lady's evidence or the Henley Centre's evidence or the Prime Minister's evidence is correct.
	The other worry that the House should have about the Bill relates to the opinions of Lord McIntosh, who for a while has fronted up the Government's views on the Bill. He told the Joint Committee:
	"I see gambling reform, which would be introduced by the Gambling Bill, as having three aspects: one is regulation, and that is clearly what the Bill is about, and that is most of what you have been covering; the second is the tax regime; and the third is the location regime. You will not fully understand the gambling reform unless you have all those three legs of the stool in place."
	I am sure that he is absolutely right, but there is nothing in the Bill about the tax regime, which Lord McIntosh said was crucial if we were to understand the reform. The Secretary of State told us from the Dispatch Box only an hour ago that the tax regime for gambling was nothing to do with her and that it was all to do with the Treasury. However, if we do not have a clear understanding of the tax regime, how can we know how many new super-casinos there will be? Lord McIntosh agrees with me, but there is nothing in the Bill.
	Lord McIntosh said that the location regime was the second of the three legs, but what there is on that is wholly inadequate, confusing and flawed. So basically, we have a Bill that is two legs short of a stool. We simply cannot understand the reform, as Lord McIntosh said, unless we have the other details.
	We are also expected to be confident that the industry will ensure that there will be only between 20 and 40 of the new casinos. That is what the Prime Minister and the Government have claimed. The Government say that that range is an industry prediction, but I would be interested to know which part of the industry made that prediction. When I ask people in the industry whether they made it they say, "No, it's what the Government have told us, and because we find it so difficult to decide how many it should be, we haven't disagreed with them." I hope that the Minister can say which parts of the industry have told the Government that the range will be between 20 and 40. If he cannot say now, perhaps he will put the answer in the Library, because people in the industry are not capable of making such a prediction.
	When people in the industry try to work out the figure and find how difficult it is they take into account the fact that there have been about 100 planning applications already, and the fact that it is reported that MGM has recently said that 10 per cent. of its global profits would come from the UK alone. Will the figure be only between 20 and 40? Who knows? But let us not be so complacent as to believe that it will be.
	That is why it was so bizarre when the Secretary of State said only a few days ago in her press notice introducing the legislation:
	"This is a Bill about new protections, not new casinos."
	What nonsense. This is a Bill about new casinos—that is the bit of the Bill that everyone is so concerned about. The Secretary of State is deeply wrong. We are concerned about the new casinos, how many there will be, where they will be and whether the profits from them will disappear from this country and end up in America. The Bill fails in the location regime in so many ways.

Adrian Sanders: Is it not the case that the Bill originally was about one resort casino, possibly in Blackpool, and that it had broad support? Now that the Bill has grown like Topsy there is less support. Surely if the Government want the Bill to go through, they ought to return to the original concept.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend is brilliant at moving me on to the next part of my speech, which is about destination casinos. The Joint Committee argued for the very point that my hon. Friend made. We should not be talking about regional casinos, but about leisure destination casinos. The Committee recognised the danger of super-casinos on the high street because of the clear link between casual, "walk in and play" gambling and problem gambling. The Government initially appeared to agree, which is why so many of us are so shocked at what has happened in the final stages of drafting the Bill.
	In giving evidence to the Joint Committee at the end of last year, Lord McIntosh appeared to agree with the merits of making "a positive decision" to go gambling, rather than
	"casual gambling which is thrust at you at the street corner".
	Well, he seems to have changed his mind, although in the press release that he issued two days ago, he suddenly talked about destination casinos again, so whether that was a U-turn or merely a blunder, we do not know.
	Fundamentally, the Government have missed the point about the type of super-casinos in limited numbers in which people might be interested. We simply do not know whether the benefits to which the Government refer—not only jobs, but economic regeneration—will come. In an earlier intervention, I quoted circular 1/97, which states:
	"Planning obligations should never be used as a means of securing for the local community a share in the profits of the development."
	In other words, councils cannot expect exceptional planning gain to occur. The Minister will say that circular 1/97 is out of date and has been superseded by the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, but when he looks at that measure, he will see that the principle has not been changed. Can he confirm whether I am correct that councils will not be able to get exceptional planning gain when such applications are made?

David Hamilton: On several occasions, it has been suggested that local authorities are the safeguard on the Bill. Are not the turnovers of some of the companies involved triple or quadruple the amount that most local authorities have? Local authorities will not be in a position to challenge what is proposed. How can one local authority reject a proposal when another will be waiting at the sidelines to accept it?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about that issue—the potential for bribing, as it has sometimes been unfairly described. It is vital that the Government consider the point that I have made in relation to the so-called section 106 agreements and what will and will not be permissible under that legislation. He raised the issue of the power of local authorities. Of course, the Government have suggested that authorities will be all-powerful in this matter. They have certainly been helped by today's announcement of the U-turn on the creation of a separate use class for all casinos. I welcome that very much, but I point out that the Bill as drafted still creates problems for individual local authorities in respect of whether they can reject specific casino proposals.
	I accept entirely that it is possible under clause 157 for local authorities to reject all casinos over a period of three years. In passing, I say to the Minister that I think that he will find that there is a difficulty with the clause, which specifically states:
	"A licensing authority may resolve not to issue casino premises licences."
	It goes on to state:
	"In passing a resolution under subsection (1) a licensing authority may have regard to any principle or matter."
	The Secretary of State has written on the front of the Bill that she believes that the provisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, but I suspect that, with the inclusion of that provision, which allows a local council to consider any matter, she will find herself in difficulty. When one lawyer looked at the provision, he said to me, "I see prosperity staring me in the face." I suspect that he is likely to be right.
	I accept that a council can reject a proposal for a three-year period, but the problem is that if they want to consider the merits of having a small casino in their area that they think might bring benefits, they will be in much greater difficulty. They will not have the ability easily to say yes or no. As hon. Members have said, the demand test has been rejected. Local authorities will not have powers to talk about public nuisance, as they do in respect of licensing, or to address saturation. Many local authority powers will be undermined, and councils do not have the specific powers to say yes or no to a specific casino proposal, notwithstanding clause 157. As I said, however, I am delighted at the change in use categories that the Secretary of State announced today.
	I began my speech by welcoming the goods parts of the Bill: regulating remote gambling, enshrining social responsibility, protecting children and establishing a new and more powerful regulator. Despite those provisions, we still need measures that will control the proliferation of super-casinos, perhaps by allowing one or two per region to start with, and we need to consider delaying the introduction of category A machines until further research has been undertaking; to reintroduce the concept of super-casinos as destination casinos to increase control of them, perhaps by introducing a membership requirement again; and to provide strong and absolute powers to local councils to specifically reject individual casino applications. Only if the Bill contained such measures could we continue supporting it. They are not in the Bill at present, which is why we will vote against it.

Janet Anderson: The Bill contains three licensing objectives that underpin the functions that the gambling commission and licensing authorities will perform: to protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling; to prevent gambling being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime; and to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly. I am astonished by the attitude of the Opposition parties. Whatever they say about parts of the Bill that they support, they cannot have it both ways. If they vote against Second Reading tonight, we can conclude only that they do not support those aims of the Bill.
	The third objective—that gambling should be conducted fairly and openly—is surely important. It is a recent development that, to some extent, gambling is hidden away—remote gambling—but it is a growth industry and is an increasingly popular pursuit for women. The Bill recognises and accommodates the significant technological changes that have occurred in the past 40 years. It requires regulation where the player is not present on the operator's premises. For example, operators based in Great Britain must obtain an operating licence to authorise the provision of gambling via remote communication—for example, via television or the internet. Moreover, the new licensing system has quite sensibly been designed to keep pace with technological developments so that, subject to appropriate parliamentary approval, gambling delivered by new, unforeseen methods can be regulated in the future.
	That area of gambling is currently unregulated, so for that reason alone doing nothing is not an option. We must ensure that children and young people are properly protected, and the Bill will, for the first time, impose restrictions on such gambling.
	My principal interest in the Bill is as a former Minister for Tourism and the current secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on tourism. Our tourism industry is worth a staggering £80 billion to the UK economy, yet our tourism deficit stands at around £14 billion. For every pound spent in the UK by a tourist from overseas, Britons spend £2 abroad. The number of visits abroad by UK residents is approaching three times the number of overseas visits to the UK. There is a desperate need to reverse the trend by offering better value for money and a more innovative product.
	That is particularly true of our seaside resorts. As the British Resorts Association pointed out in its excellent report, "Behind the Fac"ade", serious pockets of deprivation are hidden behind the fac"ade of the sea front, because of the seasonal nature of employment and the declining quality of the tourism product on offer. Let us take Blackpool as an example. I make no apology for citing Blackpool. It is situated in my region, the north-west, and many of my constituents know it well. Over the past 15 years it has seen little private investment and no major interventions to ignite regeneration and transform the resort product.
	Annual visits have decreased from 13.2 million to 10.6 million, visitor nights from 16 million to 10.5 million, and spending by overnight visitors from £800 million to £500 million. The resort's income profile has become more seasonal, with the summer season becoming shorter and the peak less pronounced. The average annual hotel occupancy rate has fallen to 22 per cent., and more than 20,000 bedrooms have transferred lawfully or unlawfully to the private rented residential sector. I will not dwell too long on the facts about the town as my hon. Friends who represent Blackpool are much more knowledgeable about local circumstances than I am.
	I single out Blackpool because the town has risen to the challenge of reinventing its tourism product. The Blackpool master plan proposes a multiple gambling, leisure and entertainment product packaged in a unique "Blackpool experience". This destination gambling environment would import revenue into the local economy, rather than recirculate existing revenue. It would transform a seasonal economy into a year-round economy. It would become the catalyst for economic regeneration that would transform decline into growth and prosperity—

Julie Kirkbride: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Janet Anderson: No, I will not give way because, as the hon. Lady knows, we are short of time.
	The economic regeneration would import pounds and euros into the north-west regional economy. The proposals anticipated the Government's decision to modernise outdated gambling legislation and create opportunities to introduce large casino-based leisure experiences to the UK market. The proposals have received wide support from the local community and from all political parties in the town. Opposition Members who have announced their intention to oppose the Bill would do well to remember that. Their colleagues in Blackpool will not thank them for their attempts to derail the legislation.
	Let us not get too carried away about the extent to which the plans would be based on casinos. Yes, the proposals for resort, destination or regional casinos, however we choose to describe them, are at the heart of the plan, but casinos represent a mere 8 per cent. of the development. They would, however, provide direct employment for 7,500 people and ignite a resort-wide regeneration programme that would include residential, retail, professional services, leisure and entertainment development, airport expansion and transport infrastructure development, and support about 27,300 jobs.
	Blackpool's plans are well advanced. That is one reason why I believe such resorts should be given special consideration, but there is another and perhaps more important reason. Much concern has been expressed that the Bill will result in a proliferation of gambling dens. We must ensure that that does not happen. I therefore welcome the Government's acceptance of the scrutiny Committee's recommendation that the new regional casinos should be limited to 1,250 machines. I also welcome the comments of the Secretary of State and the Minister that the Government are willing to listen.
	The Casino Operators Association of the UK has called for a limit to the number of regional casinos, believing that that will help to combat an increase in problem gambling. Blackpool borough council suggests limiting regional casino development to five locations during the first nine years. It also recommends that tourism-based casino developments should be favoured where there is potential to grow net revenue rather than displace and recirculate existing local spending.
	The Joint Committee was encouraged by the comments of the Minister, the noble Lord McIntosh, who stated that his Department's policy aim was to reduce the number of premises that can have category A machines to
	"limit the accessibility of jackpot machines in order to reduce the potential for problem gambling".
	As the Committee stated in its final report:
	"We believe the Government is right to proceed with caution",
	but it also concluded that the legislation is "necessary and urgent."
	I welcome what the Secretary of State said today about a separate use class order. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed. The Bill is broadly a good Bill. I will support it in the Lobby tonight. I urge Opposition Members to think again about their decision to vote against it because, as I said, they need to think carefully about how that will be interpreted outside.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Government will agree to think again by limiting the number of larger regional casinos, initially, perhaps to one or two per region, with particular regard to the tourism and regeneration potential. By doing so, they will help to allay a number of the concerns of hon. Members in all parts of the House and reassure the public.

Brian Mawhinney: In the 25-plus years in which I have been privileged to be a Member of the House, I have been called many things, particularly during the years that I was privileged to stand at the ministerial Dispatch Box, but until the Secretary of State came along, no one had ever called me a snob. In so doing, she told us more about herself and her attitudes than she informed the House about me.
	In the time that is available, I want to put on record the views of some fellow snobs—the Evangelical Alliance, with more than 4,000 church members, the Christian Institute, with hundreds of members, the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army.
	I had the privilege of listening to Sir David Frost interview the Secretary of State yesterday, and listening to John Humphrys interview her this morning. She made a point about the need for more regulation—she made it today—with which I agree. However, four questions were repeatedly put to the right hon. Lady that she could not or would not answer. She went on about the Bill being 90 per cent. about protection and only 10 per cent. about casinos. She was asked, perfectly reasonably, "Why don't you split the Bill into two? Do the 90 per cent. regulation, on which there is broad agreement across the Floor of the House and in the country, and then have a separate provision under which the other matters can be dealt with in some detail?" Never once did the right hon. Lady answer that question.
	It is not just my question. The Evangelical Alliance says:
	"No one disputes that problem gamblers exist. But the Government has no answer to the logic that an increase in the availability of gambling will inevitably increase problem gambling".
	Why not separate the two areas of the Bill? Why not put a Bill through Parliament with which all of us can agree, and then deal with the second issue in the longer term?
	The second question that the Secretary of State could not or would not answer was the benefit to the Treasury, which has varied from nothing—the right hon. Lady tells us that that was a mistake—to £3 billion. When asked about it she said, "Well, of course, that has got nothing to do with me. That is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer." It is as though she or the Chancellor were semi-detached from the Government. They are both part of the Government; they have collective responsibility. We know that, for internal Labour party reasons, the Government would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be seen as semi-detached, but that is not a good enough answer when we come to a fundamental question. If we do not know the tax regime and if we do not know what has been promised to Las Vegas, mega-style casino operators, the Government cannot be surprised if there is general scepticism throughout the country.
	The Evangelical Alliance says that
	"the initial tone of the draft proposals promised deregulation not regulation. Otherwise why would gambling interests spend an alleged £100 million on lobbying unless they believed they would stand to gain from the proposals?"
	The third question put to the Secretary of State by Sir David Frost, by John Humphrys, by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) from the Opposition Front Bench and by others, to which the right hon. Lady had no compelling answer, was, "Given this level of concern, why not put a control on the numbers and introduce more stringent planning controls?" The right hon. Lady made a small concession today—it was a small one given the range of planning issues raised by the Bill, but it was welcome. I pay tribute to her for doing so. I wish that I could believe that she had done so because she was persuaded by the logic of the argument rather than because she was trying to entice a few of the Labour Members sitting behind her to go into the Lobby with her this evening.
	There is a fundamental disparity. The Secretary of State says, "Don't worry, it will be all right. There will only be 20 to 40 casinos." There is not one regulatory power in the Bill that enables the right hon. Lady to say with confidence that there will be only 20 to 40. There are widespread media reports that so far there are 175 different proposals. When push comes to shove—given some of the people who will be involved in this business, the House should be sure that push will come to shove—20 to 40 casinos seems like so much else that the Government have predicted over the past seven years, and that is pie in the sky. It will not happen. I know that I will not be in this place to be made to eat my words if I am wrong, but I confidently tell the House that over a period 40 casinos will seem but a distant memory of some Secretary of State who was trying, to the best of her ability, to get legislation through the House about which there was considerable concern.
	The Christian Institute says:
	"The scrapping of the 'demand test' (which currently limits the number of casinos and betting shops) will make it very hard for local councils to reject planning applications. The formal legislation of Fixed Odd Betting Terminals in casinos and betting shops is equally worrying."
	That is the third question that the Secretary of State cannot answer and that the Bill does not accommodate.
	The fourth question put to the right hon. Lady by Sir David Frost and by John Humphrys—it was put to her in the House today—has still not received an answer. It is that the Bill will increase addiction and gambling problems for real people. I think that this view is shared across the Floor of the House. I take no delight from the fact that there are 300,000 problem gamblers in this country.

Jim Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Mawhinney: No.
	None of us takes pride from that figure. It is as certain as day follows night that it will rocket as a consequence of the Bill.
	"There is no public demand for an increase in gambling opportunities",
	say the Salvation Army and the Methodist Church.
	"The national opinion poll commissioned by the Salvation Army showed that 93 per cent. of the population think that there are already enough opportunities to gamble in the UK. Regulations should be brought up to date but there is no appetite for an explosion of hard forms of gambling."
	That was the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and I join him in affirming that Methodist Church and Salvation Army point.
	The Methodist Church and the Salvation Army also said that they
	"do not believe that a rise in problem gambling is a price worth paying."
	The difficulty about a debate around technology as complex as that included in the Bill is that it is all too easy to lose sight of the real people in real families in real households and in real communities who will be damaged—many of them beyond repair—as a consequence of the Bill.
	It used to be said of the Labour party that it was the Methodist Church at prayer. That is no longer the case if the Bill reflects current Labour party thinking. However, in one respect the Bill does go with the flow of new Labour, for its outcome will be gambling problems for the many, not just for the few.

Janet Dean: The Government's aim of protecting those who are vulnerable, as well as children, by introducing the Bill is welcome. The development of new forms of gambling, such as those on the internet and on mobile phones, shows that there is a clear need to update our gambling laws. The new gambling commission will have significant powers to investigate and prosecute where necessary. It will be able to monitor the areas of problem gambling.
	There is much that is good in the Bill but I have concerns, which I hope will be addressed during the passage of the Bill. Many jobs in my constituency rely on the gambling industry in one way or another: Uttoxeter is one of the best local race courses in the country and is home to the Midlands grand national, while in Burton upon Trent, the brewing industry has led to the development of not only Marmite, but pub companies and gaming machine companies such as Leisure Link. I am concerned that long-established, home-grown UK businesses should not inadvertently lose out under the Bill.
	The likely effect of an unlimited number of regional casinos would be the demise of small casinos. The competitive inequality of machine entitlement and allowing only regional casinos to have category A machines will greatly favour incomers rather than the incumbent UK operators. The potential proliferation of regional casinos, with their unlimited-prize payouts, will bring them too close to centres of population, with the resultant risk of increasing problem gambling. Although I accept that it will be for local authorities to decide whether to allow regional casinos, it will be difficult for them to decline the prospect of financial benefit to their communities.
	Representatives of the gaming machine companies have made suggestions to address the concerns expressed by many hon. Members about the potential proliferation of regional casinos. One suggestion is that the number of regional casinos should be restricted. The gaming machine companies have also suggested that the minimum size of the regional casinos should be increased, but that no category A slot machines should be introduced until after the second prevalence study, and then in small numbers only.
	The UK gambling industry is used to maximum prizes, and the doors should not be thrown open to the unlimited cash prizes offered by category A machines without a consideration of the consequences. Category B slot machines could carry increased stakes and prizes, in which case we could maintain the principle of controlled stakes and prizes in this country. Such action would protect our home-grown gaming machine companies and the associated jobs in constituencies such as mine.
	Another concern is the number of machines that will be allowed in pubs under the Bill. Although the Bill sets a maximum number of two machines by right, with more by application to the local authority, the principle of grandfather rights was established throughout the first drafts of the Bill and the submissions by the Joint Committee. Concerns have been raised because the Bill provides for grandfather rights in premises that are
	"primarily for the sale of alcohol".
	Does that mean that a country pub that has adapted to serve food and that may rely on the income from machines to remain viable cannot benefit from grandfather rights? What will be the definition of
	"primarily for the sale of alcohol"?
	The gaming machine industry accepts that machines should be removed from non-licensed premises such as fish and chip shops and taxicab offices to ensure that children do not have access to them. However, I hope that that principle will not extend to premises such as pubs and bowling alleys, which might fall foul of the definition of
	"primarily for the sale of alcohol".
	The UK has one of the best records on problem gambling and the gambling industry has been kept free from crime since the 1960s. Traditionally, we have had low-stake, low-prize machines in pubs, arcades, betting shops and a small number of casinos. It is therefore ironic that those traditionally well-regulated and socially responsible activities could be hit by the proposals in the Bill, while the Bill, as proposed, will allow an unlimited number of regional casinos with unlimited-stake and unlimited-prize machines.
	I hope that Ministers will have regard to the views of home-grown industries such as those based in my constituency and accept that their interest complements the desire to maintain a gambling industry that is free from crime and that maintains its comparatively good record on problem gambling.

John Greenway: I thank the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for the tributes that they paid to the Joint Committee's report and to my chairmanship. In turn, may I pay tribute to the Committee and to our excellent Clerks, without whom we would not have been so effective?
	I remind the House of my entries in the Register of Members' Interests as a consultant to College Hill, a public relations company whose clients include the Tote. I am also a long-standing adviser to the Institute of Sales Promotion, which supports the objective of stronger enforcement against illegal lotteries, an aspect of the Bill that no one else has mentioned.
	Most of the increase in gambling in Britain today is in unregulated, remote gambling on the internet, which, surveys suggest, includes children and young people under 18. That activity is supported by wholesale advertising, which would be illegal for more traditional forms of gambling. That cannot go on. Even fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops exist because the current law and regulations do not reflect what new technology has made possible.
	Had this debate taken place six months ago, our proceedings would have been dominated by concern about betting exchanges, which were associated with allegations of race fixing. Initiatives to improve integrity, which are presently being done voluntarily, must be secured in the longer term with the passage of this Bill. The betting exchanges want such an improvement because they recognise the danger of offshore sites, which give no protection to punters, no prospect of a fair contribution to racing or other sports and unequal treatment between different sorts of betting.
	The major gambling charity, Gamcare, welcomes the Bill and supports the Committee's view that
	"should the Bill be delayed, or even fail, the volume, availability and complexity of gambling would continue to grow but with no commensurate increase in the services which Gamcare provides."
	It knows that protection and prohibition are two different things and that prohibition leads to illegality with no protection at all. Many of our leading charities, including the hospice movement, want the Bill to help to protect the income stream that they enjoy from lotteries. In Committee, hon. Members must pay attention to the reworded provisions on illegal lotteries masquerading as prize competitions.
	During our visit to Blackpool, Churches and faith groups told us that they welcome the proposals for resort casinos as a means to create jobs and restore Blackpool's economic fortunes through better hotels, theatres, restaurants and other entertainment. Our visit left us in no doubt about the importance of a proper partnership between the casino operators and the local community in securing genuine and lasting regeneration, which would be undermined by the proliferation of major casino developments in the communities from which Blackpool traditionally draws its visitors.
	That danger of proliferation has attracted most of the current criticism. The outcome of our first report was to remove many of the potential dangers in the initial White Paper. The concept of the third category of casino—the regional casino—with a maximum of 1,250 gaming machines also results from the first report. I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the framework for regional casinos that we offered in our second report, which I still believe provides a sound basis from which to proceed.
	A mistaken perception exists that every new casino development will be a Las Vegas-style regional casino, which is not what much of the industry wants or wanted. However, the decision announced in June not to allow existing casinos any entitlement to unlimited-prize category A machines has had the perverse consequence of encouraging UK operators to ratchet up their plans to develop large regional casinos. The Committee saw that coming, which is why we recommended that the Government should not concentrate on limiting the number of casinos with category A machines, but instead should focus on how many of those machines will be available in aggregate, where they will be located and who will operate them.
	Are category A machines more harmful? No one knows. They are certainly untested in the UK market, and we need proper research based on their operation. It is not strictly necessary for a regional casino to have 1,250 machines all in category A. As Mr. Tobin Prior of Kerzner Casinos admitted to us,
	"there is a misplaced fear that all Category A machines are going to have some amazingly high jackpot which is going to lead to compulsive behaviour which is not borne out in reality. It is not a sustainable business strategy and a mix of lower frequency lower pay out machines will predominate on the gaming floor in the £10,000 to £20,000 pay out category."
	The Committee saw those volumes, albeit in euros, during our visit to France. Of course, even a £10,000 payout is five times the £2,000 maximum that is currently available on category B machines in casinos and which the Government intend to retain.
	The Government have the opportunity to achieve several objectives by making relatively modest amendments to the Bill. First, as the Committee recommended, they could increase the category B maximum payout to at least £5,000, or perhaps £10,000. That could be done through the regulations. Secondly, they could restrict the number of category A machines in regional casinos to no more than, say, 250—a fifth—with the rest being category B and C. That could be achieved by amending clause 163(3). The Government's decision to limit the number of premises with unlimited-prize category A machines would be preserved, but there would be greater fairness to the existing industry, as well as a removal of much of the incentive in favour of big regional casino developments that might lead to more modest proposals.
	However, changes to machine entitlements alone will not be enough to convince a sceptical public that Britain is not about to become the Las Vegas of Europe. I doubt whether there is a market for more than 20 regional casinos over the next 10 years. My preference would be for national strategy to achieve no more than that number, not through a cap in the Bill, but through a planning strategy. The likely locations are already well known, and guidance to regional planning bodies could limit numbers to two casinos per region, with perhaps three or four in London, making 20 in all. That could be achieved through planning policy statement 6. It is essential to prevent anyone from circumventing planning policy by introducing a separate planning category for regional casinos. I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about that.
	Planning guidance needs to err on the side of caution and to reflect the fact that regional super-casinos should not—must not—be located in largely residential areas or be included in mixed-use developments, including new housing. I therefore warmly welcome the Government's decision to allow local councils not to issue any new casino licences in their district. Conservative councillors are now predominant in local government, and I am confident that they will have the wisdom to implement that where appropriate. The Minister may laugh, but I say that because one would think from reading some of the newspapers that they are incapable of making decisions. That is not so. There is a snag, however. If they say no to all casinos, that is fine, but if they say yes to one or two they could end up with significantly more. The Government still have not addressed the danger of the floodgates opening to a larger number and the problems of saturation that that would bring. Such saturation would undermine the statutory objectives of the gambling commission, which should be the focus of everything that we decide to do through the Bill.
	The Government, across all Departments, must give priority to the Bill's statutory objectives; otherwise, they will not succeed in what they wish to do. If there is cross-departmental co-operation on the issue of planning and control, there is no reason why the Bill should not succeed in its joint aims of strengthening the protection of children and the vulnerable while allowing new opportunities that are sensibly controlled and robustly regulated.

Eric Illsley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who made an excellent contribution to the debate. His comments injected a certain sense of reality, especially in relation to the numbers of regional casinos, and highlighted the need for the Bill to be given a Second Reading and allowed to go into Committee, where all the issues can be debated in full.
	I shall not detain the House for long, but I should mention at the outset that I am honorary adviser to the northern Licensed Victuallers Association.
	One of the problems that many of my hon. Friends have faced in relation to the Bill is that it is based 90 per cent. on regulation and 10 per cent. on new forms of gambling. The obvious worry is that we may give a green light to increasing problem gambling. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ryedale give a sensible explanation of what his Committee has done. We are faced with a situation in which the Bill has become necessary. As many hon. Members said, it is required for the purposes of regulation, especially in relation to remote and internet gambling. We have heard examples of young people being able to access gambling through the internet; that activity appears to be completely unregulated.
	I am concerned about regional super-casinos being used for regeneration purposes, especially if we are to end up with 40 of them. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale thinks that there will be a maximum of 20. Leeds is the nearest city to me with a casino. There would be perhaps two or three super-casinos in a city of that size. Leeds could not accommodate that; the demand simply would not be there. Operators would be unlikely to start building these things to compete with each other in a city of that size because they would not want to involve themselves in that amount of competition. I presume that the same would apply in Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham.

David Marshall: My hon. Friend mentions cities of a comparable size to Leeds. My city of Glasgow, which is one such, already has six casinos, and plans are in the pipeline—two are already in the public domain—for five massive casinos. Far from regenerating the city, they will degenerate it. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that?

Eric Illsley: I certainly do. I cannot for the life of me see how a city the size of Glasgow would cope with 11 casinos, five or six of which will be super-casinos. I cannot understand how operators could create so many; it is the economics of madness to suggest that they are likely to want to compete to that extent.

Julie Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Illsley: No. I have given way already and will not do so again.
	If we use the legislation sensibly we can steer ourselves towards a limit by way of the economic and planning aspects. That is the obvious way in which to achieve a cap—it does not need to be included in the Bill.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members' comments on regeneration. Casinos may not create huge numbers of jobs in themselves, but other developments such as restaurants and hotels will follow on.
	I am worried by the idea of destination casinos. It seems strange that people who want to gamble in, say, south Yorkshire, should have to travel some distance to Blackpool or another such resort to gain access to such places. I would support their being situated in regions around the country, not restricted to seaside locations.
	My other points resemble those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on the so-called grandfather rights of existing establishments in regard to their provision of slot machines. Some organisations are concerned that pubs, clubs and other facilities that provide such machines will be discriminated against due to the increasing value of the new machines being introduced. Many of these organisations believe that they are likely to be regulated and will lose the existing facility to keep their machines. Many clubs—working men's clubs, private members' clubs, and so on—rely on this type of machine for a substantial part of their income and, if the Bill gets into Committee, I would ask hon. Members to examine the effect on existing establishments of the new proposals.
	I have noticed in the Bill the provision for reducing the prizes in amusement-with-prizes machines from £8 to £5 and to cap the prizes at that maximum. I have some sympathy with the arguments of those hon. Members who represent seaside constituencies that introducing such a small prize could be a retrograde step. I hope that the House gives the Bill a Second Reading this evening, because there is a lot in it that is essential, and a lot that can be worked out in Committee if we take a sensible approach to it.

Richard Page: In my office, there are two piles of paper. One is approaching 2 ft high; the other has just gone past the 1 ft barrier. I have not had any matter brought before me in my capacity as a Member of Parliament over the years that has generated so much paper and so much enthusiasm as this legislation and the work that has flowed from it.
	I am not a fan of this Government. In fact, I do not trust them too much, and I do not have much faith in them. They have done one thing, however, that has brought great advantages: they have introduced the consultative Committee work on Bills that are going to come before the House. I served on the Joint Committee and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for the effective way in which he chaired it. He jollied us along with good humour and made sure that there were no conflicts or arguments, and a unanimous report was the result each time. He is to be congratulated on that. The task was made more difficult by the fact that we did not have a full Bill to start with. It came along in dribs and drabs, which illustrates the difficulty that the drafting team at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had in getting the full Bill to us. Eventually, however, we got it.
	The argument as to why we should do something about these issues has been fully made. Those who feel that we should leave things as they are and do nothing are living in cloud cuckoo land. The internet is with us, and there is internet gambling. There is even virtual reality racing, which is one of the saddest things that I have ever seen in my life, but some people must bet on it. We also have betting exchanges. These are reasons why we have to have the Bill, but we need considerably greater assurance than we have had so far.
	Out there in the world, there is an immense income to be made from betting and gaming. If this country has the right regulations, we will get that world business. Without that control, however, we will lose it. It is far better that those regulations should be controlled in this country through the integrity that comes from our laws; if they were, it would be of benefit to everyone and we could go forward.
	The Gaming Board has done a very good job over the years, but technology has moved on, and we have to move on. The gambling commission is required, and the sooner it comes into force the better. I hope that the Government will make available sufficient money to enable it to be up and running when the Bill becomes law. One reason why we need these changes is that, for the first time, betting exchanges can trace a bet right the way through the piece. They can find out who put the money on, and to see that there is an integrity in gambling. That has not been the case before. However, they need the resources to be able to follow that up. In the past, the Jockey Club, for example, has not had the resources to enable it to do this vital work, so we welcome the proposals on that issue.
	Along with everyone else, I welcome the setting up of support for problem gamblers. My only objection is to the exciting name for the organisation in question: the Responsibility in Gambling Trust does not exactly trip off the tongue, although I very much welcome the fact that it is to be chaired by Sir David Durie, who was a very effective official at the Department of Trade and Industry when I was there.
	Concerns about the whole question of gambling have been expressed today and, for me, this boils down to the argument about freedom of choice versus state diktat. There are close similarities between these arguments and those relating to the production and sale of alcohol. The role of the state is surely to ensure that the activity is properly regulated and to provide care and help for those who cannot cope. The Responsibility in Gambling Trust will be able to do that well, because it will have the advantage of funding and the ability to introduce a statutory levy if required. I am very much in favour of the setting up of the new trust.
	There has been a lot of confusion about category A machines. People have the idea that there are going to be 1,250 such machines in each of the resort casinos, but that is absolutely untrue. There will be a range of machines. Not everyone will want to put in £5, £2 or whatever, to try to win £3 million. There will not be 1,250 machines designed for that in every casino; there will be a range of machines.
	We must also look carefully at the existing casinos and raise their limits considerably, because we do not want them to ratchet up their operations to try to become destination casinos in their own right. That would bring about a huge proliferation in gambling. We put £1 on the lottery to try to win several million. I see no difference between that and allowing the smaller casinos to have much larger limits on their payouts. People know that if they put in their £1, they are more likely to win £10 than £10 million. That is common sense.
	In the short time that I have left, I want to talk about the present media frenzy. The Government have only themselves to blame in this regard. The Joint Committee that scrutinised the Bill in its draft form made it abundantly clear that the Government had not got their act together on national guidance for regional leisure and destination casinos. The DCMS had one set of priorities, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had another, and the Treasury was, as usual, lurking in the background with its own aims and objectives. Our report highlighted those conflicts, but unfortunately, they have not been adequately resolved. In our final submission to the Government, we said:
	"While we acknowledge the Government's reluctance to publish national guidance relating specifically to regional leisure/destination casinos, we believe that it could help to ensure a consistent approach between regional authorities and avoid the need for applications to be called in".
	In their response, the Government said that they accept
	"that national planning policy guidance should, where it is appropriate, deal with casinos . . . and the two joint statements already provide a comprehensive policy framework."
	That is not strictly true; it is misleading and I believe that it is completely responsible for the situation that we find ourselves in today. That is why the Government have the wrath of the media on their head, and why a great many hon. Members are so concerned. The confusion over the location and number of casinos likely to be built is just one of the consequences of that. Inadequate guidance offered over planning policies and lack of detail over the prospective regulatory regime have led to wild statements in the press and widespread public concern.
	The Secretary of State has already made some concessions. Those may not be enough, however. The long-standing confusion remains. In 2003, the Government were claiming that the market would determine the location, number, size and character of casinos. In June this year, they were saying that their strategy was
	"based upon the direction of regional casinos to the most suitable areas."
	That is a U-turn in anyone's language.
	I do not believe that the contradictions in the Government's position have yet been adequately resolved. On the one hand, they have been arguing since the summer that
	"a relatively low number of regional casinos"
	is likely, even though The Times revealed on Saturday that at least 41 out of the 172 casinos currently being planned will fall into that category. The Secretary of State has said that local authorities can say no. But what happens if local authorities say yes, yes and yes? What will control the numbers and the applications that come through?
	In the event of conflicts between regional planning bodies or development agencies and local authorities, I can see that the decision will end up being taken in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—the very thing that Ministers have said consistently that they do not want to happen. I am afraid that it is order, counter-order and disorder. I return to the issue of lack of trust—this Government cannot be trusted on this matter. I cannot agree to a flood of casinos, and until I see the specifics of protection on numbers in relation to regional policy, I regret that I must vote against the Bill.

Joan Humble: First, I very much welcome the Bill, which will offer protections for children and the vulnerable, set up the gambling commission, and introduce all the modern regulation that is needed in today's gambling industry. People have been debating this Bill as if it existed in a vacuum—as if the world has not changed. Well, the world has changed since the last piece of legislation on the matter in 1968. We must have this Bill, with all its regulations and protections.
	Later in my speech, I will raise some of my specific concerns about regional casinos, but the debate should not be hijacked by such concerns, and unless we give this Bill a Second Reading, all its good aspects will be lost. Many Members who have said that they will vote against Second Reading have also anticipated later discussions and put in bids for aspects that they want changed. To me that is illogical. It is not the stance that we should take.
	The nature of Second Reading debates means that we tend to gloss over the aspects of a Bill that we like, and concentrate on those areas about which we have concerns. The Minister will not therefore be entirely surprised if I mention one or two matters that will need further consideration as the Bill proceeds.
	First, I have been contacted by some bingo operators in Blackpool who are concerned about section 21 games and whether they will continue to be allowed to offer them, as they are not games of equal chance, as set out in the legislation. Equally, they have drawn my attention to mechanical cash bingo, which they think will be caught by the new machine classification. Finally, they are concerned about the issue of retaining roll-overs so that they can generate high prizes, which was proposed by Budd, and confirmed in the White Paper, but is not mentioned in the Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider that kind of detail.
	We have heard some interesting contributions about regional casinos this evening and I want to concentrate on how they could be harnessed for regeneration purposes. I was reassured when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that she expected only 20 to 40 regional casinos to be built. But why does she expect only 20 to 40, how does she expect that, and where does she expect them to be? There are some genuine concerns about proliferation.

Andy Reed: Is not the crux of the matter that regional super-casinos could be regulated through planning or other measures, and that such measures could be introduced in Committee? Tonight, therefore, we should give the Bill its Second Reading, and concentrate all our efforts on making sure that we prevent such super-casinos from being created. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) suggested, powers are available to do that.

Joan Humble: I can throw away the rest of my speech, as that is exactly what I will suggest to the Minister.
	I have talked to my constituents in Blackpool about the development of what were originally resort casinos, what they would prefer to be destination casinos, and what are currently called regional casinos. Interestingly, they would only want them in the town if they were part of a genuine regeneration effort. Blackpool council is to be applauded, as it conducted an extensive consultation exercise back in 2002, as did our local newspaper, The Gazette, and people were fairly evenly split on whether they were in favour of resort casinos coming to Blackpool. When they were asked about the regeneration potential, however, the number of those in favour went up markedly.
	The other question is: what do we mean by regeneration? No definition of regeneration has been offered and I would urge both Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and their colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to provide one. To me, regeneration means attracting new jobs, new schools and new opportunities, and it must be part of a much wider package. We cannot just build developments—development and regeneration are different. New regional casinos are different from swimming pools, ice rinks or velodromes, which can just be deposited in areas of a town or city—casinos are large complexes offering entertainment 24 hours a day, with large high-value jackpot machines. They are major enterprises and must be part of a much larger plan to achieve the regeneration for which my constituents would look.
	The Government are relying on regional planning organisations through their regional spatial strategies, but I must ask the Minister whether that is enough. In the north-west, I am pleased that the regional development agency, the regional assembly and the Government office for the north-west have come together and commissioned a research paper, from which they will develop an interim policy framework, which will help inform their regional spatial strategy. Are other regions doing the same? What happens if individual policy framework documents conflict with each other? How will the RSS interact in different regions? The Government should consider developing a national policy framework within which regional planning bodies can operate. If we are given a definition of regeneration, we can all work from it, and the process will offer transparency.
	I was going to mention concerns about use class orders, but I am pleased about the Secretary of State's announcement earlier, and her statement about pulling together a policy document before new casinos are allowed. There was a real fear that some casino developers would take advantage of the lack of existing planning rules, and sneak in their proposals via local authorities that would welcome whatever money they could get. I spent 12 years in local government, yet I find myself saying—for perhaps the first time in this place—that local authorities should not necessarily have that key role, because it could lead to a proliferation of large casinos. There must be a national strategy and a regional perspective, but of course, it is local authorities that could and should consult their local communities, and which understand them best.
	But even if the RSS worked properly, if agreement were then reached at regional level to have as many as seven large regional casinos in each area, 90 per cent. of people in this country would be half an hour away from such a casino. How can regeneration be achieved on the back of that? We must also consider concerns about the resulting proliferation of gambling. If those who might be addicted to gambling are half an hour away from a large regional casino, the dangers associated with such addiction will be greatly increased. Some in Blackpool have argued to the Joint Committee that destination casinos can address that problem. When people have to travel further, they plan how they are going to spend their time and money. That would be a much better system, and hopefully it would address some of the concerns that many Members have expressed.
	If we can deal with planning and look again at destination casinos, we can allay many fears and build on what local communities want. My hon. Friends have been waiting for me to mention Blackpool—[Interruption.] And Fleetwood. Blackpool is unique among local authorities and it is still the premier resort in the country. It has spent five years developing a strategic master plan that incorporates not only casinos, but other businesses and the public and private sectors. It is also looking to expand airports and other transport mechanisms. It is into precisely such settings that regional casinos should be placed to enhance what resorts have to offer and provide jobs for local communities and a better tourism product.
	Surely we should be using the Bill to link RDAs' regeneration plans, regional tourism strategies and local government frameworks. The report shows that Blackpool—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) expressed fairly and clearly the dangers that many of us feel could arise from regional casinos. The most worrying aspect of this debate is that neither the Government nor anyone else have made a convincing case as to why we require such casinos at all; nor have they explained convincingly that we can be certain that casinos will not impact adversely on communities.
	We need to look at the evidence in considering the unwelcome and unreasonably optimistic view that this proposition will somehow bring great benefits. Some 25 years ago, the inhabitants of Atlantic City, in New Jersey, were told that wonderful things would happen if they went in for the big casinos. They were told that things would be terrific—that what was a pleasant and prosperous little place would become very exciting. In fact, in the first nine years following their introduction, crime rose not by 10 or 20 per cent., but by 107 per cent. Businesses closed down all over the place, and the number of hotels reduced dramatically. Where before there were 2,100 hotels and businesses in Atlantic City, now, only 60 independent hotels remain. Unemployment, far from disappearing, got into a bad way. In 2002, unemployment in New Jersey as a whole was running at only 3.8 per cent., but in Atlantic City it was 9.9 per cent. What was promised to be great proved not to be great at all.
	Why on earth are we doing this, and if we are going to do it, why not try out such casinos in one place—Blackpool, for example—to see what the impact is? My fear is that we will do enormous damage to existing casinos. I represent Southend-on-Sea, which has three casinos. I was not terribly happy when the first one came, but in fairness, thanks to the activities of the current and previous Governments, gambling in Britain is run in a remarkable way, and more sensibly and properly than in almost any other country. As someone who lives locally and who travels quite a bit, I have not received a single complaint about any of the three casinos, except for complaints from two people who claimed that they had been excluded from them because of bad behaviour. Those casinos operate on the basis that people cannot simply walk in. They have to be members and to apply for membership 24 hours beforehand, and if they do not follow the rules they can be excluded.
	I hope that the Government realise that thanks to their efforts and those of the previous Government, we have an extremely good system that works very well indeed and produces a great deal of employment and growth. The gaming and betting industry employs 82,000 people, and last year it generated an income of £1.76 billion. It is a big industry that works extremely well. I hope that the Government will say whether they have given any thought to the impact on existing casinos—of which there are many—of these dramatic new regional casinos. Such casinos are huge and will cost a fortune. If they offer massive prizes from their wonderful machines—one Member congratulated the Government on ensuring that they will contain only 1,250 such machines—the effect on existing casinos could be devastating. That does not seem sensible. Why on earth are we going for such a major change without trying it out first?
	Some people will say that there are those who always object to change and who are unduly pessimistic. But we should try out such casinos in one place to see what their impact is. Will they help to revive communities and bring new and exciting prospects, or will they damage existing businesses? My fear, as a pessimist, is that it is not a good idea. If we go ahead with what are a substantial number of regional casinos, the effect could be devastating. Of course, they could also increase the amount of gambling; indeed, in order to pay for the new premises, there would have to be a huge increase in gambling.
	I am sorry that this is not a free-vote issue. Most Members to whom I speak—from all parts of the House—think this a very unusual move. I hope that the Government will endeavour to give us a reason why we should go ahead with this plan, and to explain why it would not be better to try out such casinos in one area, to see what the implications are. My fear is that, as often happens, the long-term effect could be very serious, and one that we will live to regret.
	There is one more point that I wish briefly to make, concerning the Bill's impact on existing operations in Southend. Like many seaside towns, Southend has lots of arcades. The impression that I gained was that under the proposed minor changes, young people would not be able to use certain machines. Such a proposal seemed very unusual indeed. Apparently, young people were to be prevented from using category D machines, such as cranes that grab toys, coin pusher games involving 10p and 2p coins, and redemption machines that issue tickets as prizes.
	The Government then explained that those activities would not be prevented, but that they wanted reserve powers, which could be brought in, if necessary. I wonder whether the Government think that that is sensible. How would they like to run a business employing many people and spending much money, if all the time they were subject to the danger of a Government bringing in new regulations that could put them out of business? It seems to me that that is a daft proposal and that it should be scrapped in Committee.
	I apologise to Members for going on far too long [Hon. Members: "No."], but I hope that both sides of the House can agree that the proposal for regional casinos could be madness and could be daft. It could do great damage if we go ahead with those casinos without careful and precise planning. Why not have a trial operation before we make the great change? I believe that that provides the best way forward.

Anthony D Wright: First, I want to express my admiration for the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who chaired the Joint Committee.
	Over the past few weeks, considerable criticism— some justified, some not—has surrounded the publication of the Bill. I was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and I certainly found the whole exercise very positive in helping to create, by and large, a good Bill. I remain cautious, however, about some of the Bill's provisions and I will want amendments in certain areas before I give it my wholehearted support.
	One of the criticisms is that the Bill is being rushed through, but I do not accept that. To counter it, I would say that, over the past 30 or 40 years, the gambling laws have been tidied as deemed necessary at the time. For instance, when casinos were first permitted in the early 1960s there were more than 1,000 of them, but serious problems about their legitimacy led to their being regulated and reduced to a realistic number soon afterwards. According to Library statistics, we now have some 131 casinos.
	Another review was conducted at the time of the Gaming Act 1968, but it was not until the mid-1990s that it became apparent that serious reform was required. Indeed, it could be said that the Gambling Bill before us now was initiated in 1996 by the Gaming Board's call for substantial reform of the 1968 Act. In March 1997, the then Conservative Government were in the process of significant deregulation of the casino industry via two deregulation orders, which were introduced to avoid the need for primary legislation. It is worth noting that a significant element of those orders was to increase the number of casinos in the UK by 21 without primary legislation, so I am surprised by the Leader of the Opposition's current stance, especially given that he was Home Secretary at the time.
	The Bill clearly provides more protection for the vulnerable and children while allowing for a more regulated industry, coupled with possible regeneration of many areas of the UK. The safeguards and benefits have largely been absent from previous reforms. Fortunately, the general election stopped the Conservatives' proposals for 21 more casinos being passed without the proper scrutiny of primary legislation, hence the Bill before us today.
	After the election, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), announced that there would be no change in respect of permitted areas and their extension, but did accept that minor changes, such as the ability to join a casino by post, were acceptable. The Gaming Board still urged major reform, spurred mainly by technological progress and by people's ability to gamble in a less regulated and protected environment through the relatively new betting exchanges, remote gambling and betting on horse racing via TV from the comfort of their own homes. In other words, we were in an era of 24-hour, seven-days-a-week gambling, much of which was unregulated.
	When the Gaming Act was enacted in 1968, none of those technologies was available. The original scope of the Act addressed the issues very well, but the industry has moved on. I was pleased, therefore, when, in 1999, the Home Secretary announced the setting up of an independent review body to look into all aspects of the gambling industry, which led to the publication of the Budd report in 2001. After significant consultation, the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee was formed last year and reported earlier this year, leading to the Bill before us today. I certainly do not intend to go into too much detail, as many right hon. and hon. Members either have, or will, raise their particular issues of concern. I intend to be brief to allow other hon. Members to express their views.
	The concept of resort, regional or destination casinos, as the Committee wanted to call them, provides an opportunity for the regeneration of many areas of the UK, particularly seaside resorts, by enabling local authorities to make gains from section 106 moneys for other add-on facilities. However, the number of casinos must be restricted: it is no good allowing market forces to dictate how many and where they will be put. There must be an element of direction, and I suggest that a maximum of two resort casinos in each region would be more than enough, as they would represent a fair geographical spread of the investment. Perhaps as an interim measure, we could restrict the number to one per region.
	That investment would result from regional planning bodies being able to determine the permitted areas, taking into account the regional economic strategy and, just as importantly, discussion and consultation with the local planning body and the local community. If we allow market forces to determine the location of resort casinos, without a regional spread, I will certainly have to consider whether I can support this part of the Bill.
	Another area of concern that directly affects my constituency and those of many other hon. Members are the new restrictions on existing family amusement centres, which have been an integral part of the British seaside resort for many years. I can remember when I was a child visiting the amusement arcades during the summer months. Even then, anyone under 14 was summarily kicked out by the attendant for being under age—not that I was, of course, I hasten to add.
	In my view, the British Amusement and Catering Trades Association's code of conduct protects children, who will not, I believe, face any more risk of becoming problem gamblers under the Bill. Currently, children under 16 have to be accompanied by an adult, which provides even more insurance that such venues will not turn children into the problem gamblers of tomorrow. I am sure that there will be some isolated cases against that argument, but the experience and knowledge that I have gained from having lived in Great Yarmouth all my life lead me to believe that these centres are an accepted, well regulated and necessary part of the British seaside resort.
	Another matter of concern is the restriction to be placed on family amusement centres, which could reduce their viability. Members of the Joint Committee visited Blackpool and Great Yarmouth and found that one problem relates to category D machines and the new definition of "amusement with prizes". It is proposed to lower prizes to a maximum of £5 instead of the current £8, and to reduce the maximum stake for cash machines to 10p from the current 30p maximum. There is no evidence to suggest that problems are being created for children or for whoever plays these machines. I would certainly welcome funding for a report to look further into that matter. Another issue is the protection of existing amusement centres through "grandfather rights"—a matter of great concern to many working in the industry at seaside resorts. Those and other issues must be dealt with in Committee.
	Overall, it would be foolish for us not to agree with many of the measures that the Bill will introduce. Recent negative press reports have whipped up hysteria based on fears rather than facts and have done no service to the debate on a serious issue. Indeed, comments from across the spectrum—from the industry itself to the charities that deal with problem gamblers—have welcomed many of the Bill's proposals, which in some cases give real protection to the vulnerable in our society and to children for the first time. The critics tell us that if the Bill goes through, it will create another "Australian model" with a huge increase in problem gambling, when the truth is that there is more chance of the Australian model coming to the UK if the Bill fails.
	I have already outlined some of the changes that I want, and other changes will follow. I am confident that we will end up with a Bill that not only delivers what the Gaming Board asked for back in 1996–97—more protection for children and the vulnerable—but takes into account much of the technological advance that we have seen since. It will also provide real opportunities for regeneration. I shall support the Bill on Second Reading, but I will press for amendments on the issues that I have highlighted—unless, of course, the Tories and Liberals have their way and stop the Second Reading. In that case, there will be no Bill and no further protection for children and the vulnerable from such problems as internet gambling.

Simon Thomas: My colleagues and I will vote against Second Reading for the reasons set out in our reasoned amendment. I want to say something about the tenor of the Bill, and the philosophy behind it, that is more personal than political.
	I find the Bill deeply unsatisfactory. I intend no disrespect to the Joint Committee, which did a good job of scrutinising the Government's proposals and the Budd report. It is dispiriting that we have a Government who set out a vision of being a world leader in all fields of gambling activity, because it shows poverty of imagination and leadership.
	One thing that we have not acknowledged in the debate so far is the harm that gambling does to society and to families throughout the country. We have mentioned the 300,000 problem gamblers as though they were some select group of people whom we can put to one side and treat separately. Gambling pervades society, and it harms society.
	Governments are no longer prepared to tolerate the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco, yet the Government are prepared to be lobbied and bullied into extending and facilitating gambling, which is very dispiriting and unfortunate. The mothers and fathers of socialism would find it particularly dispiriting. It is not patronising, elitist or snobbish to stand up and say that gambling harms society and the poor and the working class disproportionately—indeed, when one did so it used to be called socialism and fighting for one's class and a better society. Now, the Government are smuggling through the back door a change in regulation that will control and alter the way in which we run society, which is very unfortunate.
	It is also deeply dispiriting that the Government's vision of the regeneration of our seaside towns is based on making money from gambling—from a mug's game, by fleecing people. We are considering regeneration not based on education, skills, manufacturing, libraries or culture but built on gambling. What a lack of imagination. What a poor state we are in when the only thing we can offer our decaying seaside towns, including some in my constituency, is regeneration based on gambling and on taking from those who do not have and giving it to those who have plenty.
	People talk of reality and say, "Support the Bill. It's only 20 or 40 super-casinos—nothing much." The reality is that gambling is already growing exponentially. Last year alone, 12 million people gambled via the red button on the Sky interactive service. Gambling is being introduced into our homes, making it easier than ever before to participate. Before long, it will be possible to gamble on a mobile phone. [Hon. Members: "It is now."] Perhaps it is; it is not something that I use. Where are the controls on young people's access to that? There is increasing evidence that suicide, bankruptcy and domestic violence have risen in towns and cities where casinos have opened.
	The Government say that the purpose of the Bill is to regulate the growth in remote, online gambling, but the basic question is whether such gambling should be happening in the first place—whether it is good for society. Any Government, and certainly the House of Commons, should be asking that question. Should we not be thinking of different ways to tackle the problem? We live in a society where debt is increasing by £1 million every four minutes. While I am on my feet for my 10-minute speech, there will be a £2.5 million increase in personal debt in this country.

Tony Banks: Sit down then.

Simon Thomas: No doubt personal debt will increase even more if the hon. Gentleman gets his way and makes a speech, as people are driven out to gamble.
	Gambling is founded on misery and on broken dreams for many, and it is a broken dream for a Government to promote it. Let us look at some of the parts of the Bill. We are told that we will see only 20 to 40 super-casinos, but that is a margin of error of 100 per cent. I cannot trust such figures. We are talking about a 1 or 2 per cent. margin in the US presidential election, so why should we trust a margin of 100 per cent.? If the gates have opened, I have no doubt that lobbyists will force the legislation through. Super-casinos will do for gambling what super-pubs have done for binge drinking. They will increase gambling rates and the amount of problem gambling. Allowing super-casinos to provide some form of regeneration is like expecting supermarkets to regenerate our town centres—it ain't going to happen.
	The Government talk about a triple lock on the development of super-casinos. From what I see in the Bill, that lock will be about as effective as a Krooklok on a dodgy Ford Escort in an unlit car park. There needs to be considerable strengthening of regulation of super-casinos. In particular I want local authorities to be able to say no, not for three years before facing court cases, pressure and lobbying, but on behalf of their populations and for it to mean no. I want membership of casinos to remain a requirement, although perhaps not 24-hour membership. I do not want alcohol to be served at gaming tables, because that befuddles people's minds and leads to more betting. Lines of credit should not be offered in super-casinos either. That would merely facilitate people's reliance on gambling. We should look again at grandfather rights, too. Perhaps we shall have an indication of that happening.
	Online betting is growing. I know that because I received some spam e-mail from The Daily Telegraph on Friday, which said:
	"Dear Simon, Try your hand at fantasy poker today. If the image of smoky back rooms and high-stakes are putting you off playing poker, then playing online might be just right for you . . .
	Online poker rooms offer a safe environment to learn and practise.
	Online poker rooms suit women well"—
	I do not know why the e-mail was sent to me—
	"they are encouraged by the low stakes and low commitment. Women's personality traits give them an advantage in poker."
	There is no way that The Daily Telegraph could have known in sending me that e-mail, encouraging me to link to an online gambling site, that I was over 18 years old. Instead of asking whether we should regulate such betting, we should be asking ourselves whether it should be possible at all. At the moment, online gambling based on a UK website is illegal. Perhaps we should keep it that way. People would not lose their money online—fine. We should not be making it easier for people to gamble in that way.
	I want also to address the problem of lotteries, because the Bill could have an effect on good-cause lotteries. I have been contacted by Ty Hafan children's hospice in Wales, which is concerned about pseudo-lotteries—the sort of thing on television that plays a video of Robbie Williams singing "Radio" and invites people to phone in at £1.50 a minute to name his latest single. That is supposed to be a competition; that is a lottery.

Chris Ruane: What is it?

Simon Thomas: "Radio". I have just mentioned it; the hon. Gentleman was not listening. Such prize-based competitions that are heavily promoted on television are a form of gambling. The Bill addresses that, but I want to ensure that it makes such gambling much more difficult to engage in.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) about family and holiday centres. I share some of his concerns about places such as Quay West in my constituency where gaming is not the primary purpose. We need to see what happens. The Joint Committee suggested that an evidence-based report be commissioned on what happens when children enter such places. I agree with that suggestion.
	The Bill represents a return to Victorian values—that is the pattern that is emerging. The Licensing Act 2003 promoted binge drinking, and this Bill promotes easy gambling. We will see what happens about smoking. It is curious that the Government are thinking of banning smoking around gaming tables while making it easier to gamble. That shows that the nanny state has got its knickers in a twist.
	The Secretary of State is dealing the cards of regulation and asking us to look at what is being done to protect children under the Bill—her card trick—but we should be looking at the magicians' cabinet behind her. In there lies the spectre of more gambling, more problems and more harm to society. I very much hope that a true socialist, a true Labour person and anyone who believes in a better society will reject the Bill tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to hon. Members who are desirous of catching my eye that it would be useful if they stood to speak in their usual places?

Win Griffiths: I approach the debate in something of a dilemma. I am sorry that I did not pay more attention to what was happening during pre-legislative scrutiny. I have a seaside resort in my constituency and, when Mr. Budd's report was first published, I wrote a piece for one of my local papers in which I stated that I did not believe that the Budd concept of mega-casinos would help in the regeneration of a seaside town in south Wales. After examining the Bill last week I wrote another article, which was for Labour party members. It stated that I did not believe that the proposals for super-casinos in the Bill would help to regenerate Porthcawl or any other town in my constituency.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend believe that we would benefit from trials of perhaps four super-casinos, in, for example, Blackpool, which has an airport, and that they should constitute the only trials in the country?

Win Griffiths: I have signed the early-day motion that proposed a trial, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) tabled. Four is excessive. Ideally, we should not have super-casinos at all, but if the Government genuinely want to test the concept let us go for it in one resort, perhaps two in extremis. I am a Methodist and my Church suggested to me that there are many good things in the Bill, for example, regulating new forms of betting and strengthening some of the regulation on existing forms. However, when I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I had the feeling that the Government would not change their minds about some of the provisions to which I would support significant change. For example, although it is not acceptable to me, some hon. Members would accept a cap of 20 to 40 mega-casinos. I would not accept that, but the Government were not even prepared to accept the need for a cap.
	I find myself in the position of supporting the better regulation of new and existing forms of gambling but totally opposing anything that would allow mega-casinos to get a toe hold in the United Kingdom. It is as though a farmer had decided to repair all the fences in his field to protect his animals, but simultaneously decided to make a huge gap in all the better hedges to allow the animals to roam wherever they please.
	I am moving towards voting against Second Reading. My original idea was to make a speech and say that the Bill contained good provisions that must be supported, others that were terrible and that I could not support, but that it should be allowed to proceed to Committee and, if the changes that I supported were not accepted, I would vote against Third Reading. However, from what I have heard this evening the prospect of significant change in Committee is diminishing.
	I have been a Member of Parliament for some years and I know how Committees are composed. The idea of the Government appointing a majority of Members who want the changes that I support will not be realised. While I remain on the horns of a dilemma, I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism that I am inclining towards voting against Second Reading.
	The polls on whether sufficient gambling opportunities exist show that most people believe that they do. Most people also believe that if we provide further gambling opportunities, we will create further gambling problems. When we consider the aid that is available through voluntary effort—organisations such as Gamblers Anonymous and GamCare do fantastic work—and the pitiful contribution of Governments to that since we have had casino gambling, I have to take with a pinch of salt the letters that I have read about how the industry will put money into trying to counsel people who experience problems to ensure that they do not become problem gamblers. The efforts that are made to tackle problem drinking are inadequate and getting worse rather than better. Even if the proposals are tweaked here and there, they will result in gambling problems for more people.
	The fixed-odds betting terminals are a disaster in that they encourage people to bet. We will allow them, if not to proliferate, to be available in plenty of places with a modicum of regulation.

Mark Tami: A figure of 300,000 is used for the number of problem gamblers. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only they but their families are affected and that the problem is perhaps greater than it is presented?

Win Griffiths: Yes. To those 300,000-plus people, one has to add at least three or four family members who are damaged by the process. Beyond that, others are affected. I am therefore sceptical about our ability to say, "Look, we're only acting like mature adults in giving people an opportunity to gamble in regulated circumstances. We'll make sure that they won't get into any severe gambling problems." The evidence is to the contrary.
	I am surprised—having been on the fringe of developments and given the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny that the draft Bill received—that so many people are dissatisfied with the final product. Perhaps the Government have been searching for compromises and, in trying to satisfy everybody, have satisfied nobody except those who want the mega-casinos.

Kate Hoey: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the vote. Does he agree that, given the all-round support for many aspects of the Bill, the Government could solve the difficulty by withdrawing the provision on the mega-casinos, thus allowing the regulation provisions to have all-party support and progress through the House quickly?

Win Griffiths: That is a brilliant idea, which I would happily support. If the Government said that they had decided to do that in fairness to the views expressed, I would be happy. Pigs may fly and I am waiting. However, at the moment I am veering towards voting against Second Reading. Earlier, I thought that I would vote to allow it to proceed to Committee, but the possibility of genuinely significant change appears to diminish as the night goes on.

Julie Kirkbride: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I agree with his views and he amply articulated the reasons why Her Majesty's Opposition will vote against Second Reading. They will do that for many of the reasons that he outlined.
	I am delighted to be called to speak because the Bill heralds one of the most profound social changes in our society that I have witnessed in my seven years as a Member of Parliament. I am therefore pleased to put my arguments on the record and I shall be equally pleased, if I am chosen, to serve in Committee.
	Many Members, including the Secretary of State, have given personal freedom to gamble as a good reason for the Bill. In fact, the United Kingdom already has liberal, adult, fair and reasonable gaming laws that have stood the test of time, as is shown by the fact that, in relative terms, we have fewer gambling addicts than other jurisdictions. It is possible to win many millions of pounds on the lottery. It is possible to put any amount on a horse at a bookmaker's and—in the case of those lucky enough to pick all the right horses—to win many hundreds of thousands of pounds. There are plenty of opportunities to gamble, and that includes casinos, of which there are already 130. I see no overwhelming reason to change the gambling laws more profoundly than they have been changed already, and my view is strongly supported by the results of public opinion polls.
	Many Members, including the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), have suggested that we can all agree with 90 per cent. of the Bill. I hope the Minister listens, because much of what he wishes to do is very relevant. The Bill could have a fair passage through both Houses if he chose to proceed with that 90 per cent. rather than the 10 per cent. that relates to the casino industry. I fear that he will not listen tonight, but given the House's expectation of a general election next year and a possible clearing of the decks by March, when the shutters come down the 90 per cent. may well go through on the nod and the 10 per cent. may well be dropped. It is a shame that so much engagement must take place on measures that I think are unlikely to be passed.

Lindsay Hoyle: rose—

Julie Kirkbride: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Lady's hon. Friend is very pleased that she has given way. She is opposed to 10 per cent. of the Bill, but—although this relates to that 10 per cent.—may I ask whether she would accept one or two super-casinos on a trial basis?

Julie Kirkbride: I am happy to pre-empt my speech. I would prefer one super-casino on a trial basis, although I would probably accept two. I would like to take the argument further, but I am happy to give a direct answer to a direct question.
	Let me now focus on my disagreements with the Government. The main one relates to their argument that their principal aim is to protect children. I do not think that it stacks up. At Question Time, the Secretary of State failed to answer my question about how the Bill would benefit children. In fact, the Department has done no research that shows what harm is done to them by the existing gaming laws. I see no reason to prevent fish and chip shops and cab firms from retaining their modest slot machines offering a £5 payout for a 10p stake. Local authorities already have the right to ban machines from such premises, but they do not choose to do so. Why are the Government choosing to do it now? This seems a vindictive measure, given that it will affect small businesses that work hard to make a profit.
	The Government claim that they want to regulate the internet in order to protect children, but as they cannot regulate internet sites outside the UK's jurisdiction, there is no real argument for that either.
	I am particularly worried about the possible effect on seaside slot machine arcades. Many seaside communities already face serious economic challenges, and such arcades do no obvious harm to children. I remember gambling in them as a child—and I assure the Minister that I am not a gambler now by any stretch of the imagination. We are talking about a harmless pursuit that promotes economic activity in seaside resorts. The Minister denies that there would be a problem, but there is a problem: his intention to put a black spot on seaside arcades by creating a power that could shut them down overnight. Any seaside arcade owner thinking of investing in gaming machines will be deeply worried, not just by that part of the Bill, but by measures to cut the stake to be levied and the value of the potential prize. I hope very much that the Minister will think again.

Kate Hoey: rose—

Julie Kirkbride: I will happily give way to my hon. Friend—as she is, on this issue.

Kate Hoey: Given her former responsibility, does the hon. Lady share my concern about the many sports clubs throughout the country that use gaming machines as a direct means of raising income? They are licensed to have the machines, but do not allow children under 18 to use them. Will not the Government have to find a way to replace the money that many small amateur sports clubs will lose?

Julie Kirkbride: That is a good point. Last year, the Government rightly gave sports clubs of that kind rate relief, but depriving them of the machines could do more damage than depriving them of the relief.
	Members have mentioned the changes relating to category A gaming machines. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who has left the Chamber, said he did not see how the new regime would make a difference, but it would produce an environment very different from the one to which we are accustomed. Category A machines are programmed by very clever people to be enticing, hypnotic and addictive. The player feels that he is one point, or one fruit, away from the £1 million prize: he need only chase his losses, and everything will be all right on the night. That is very different from gambling on the horses, because the bookmakers close. It is very different from gambling on the lottery, which can be done only twice a week. These premises will be open 24 hours a day and can be visited by people on their way to work and on their way back. Even on the Government's estimate, they will be available in up to 40 towns and cities.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that he thought casinos should be available in every region, and what was the problem? The problem is this: people who are addicted to gambling will be able to play addictive slot machines every hour of the day, every day of the week, every week of the year. Again, that is very different from what we have been used to.
	The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) about the number of casinos already in Glasgow. I was surprised to learn that Glasgow already supports six casinos and that planning is under way for five super-casinos. The Government's proposals will do great damage to existing casinos because as they are not allowed to operate category A machines, they will be wiped out by the new regime—not that I am suggesting that they should be allowed category A machines.
	There is clearly an incipient demand for casinos of this kind, especially in poorer communities, and the idea that no great social change will ensue from the Government's proposals is strictly for the birds. With 40 super-casinos across the country, the bulk of the population will have regular access to such gaming. I think that that will herald serious social changes. It will also displace many existing businesses. It will damage pubs, clubs and restaurants in town centres. In order to recoup investment in casinos they will have to drag the punters in by offering cheap booze and meals and free entertainment. Those who do not gamble will have a very nice time, but those who do will be in deep trouble. Their names and addresses will be taken down, and when they have not been there for a week they will be reminded that if they go in they can have £10-worth on the slot machine free—and hey presto, they will end up spending much more than they expected to. I do not think that people appreciate just how such organisations work and it will come as quite a shock as and when the proposals are unleashed.
	Money laundering has not been referred to in the debate to my knowledge since it was mentioned by the Secretary of State. It is shocking that the Government are even considering changing the money laundering regulations in order to allow people to take away their chips. If any hon. Member goes to the bank, we have to take our birth certificate and everything else to prove that we exist just to put £5 into an account, yet we will be able to take away thousands of pounds worth of chips with no questions asked. It is quite wrong, but clearly it is the only way that the big American casino operators will be persuaded to come to Britain. It is disgraceful that that should even be considered.
	The quintessence of new Labour's confusion is that it can on the one hand say that these are great proposals, using all the buzz words such as regeneration, modernisation, that it will all be fantastic and that the casino operators will come and spend hundreds of millions of pounds tarting up our seaside resorts and town centres, but make no mention of those who will provide the return on that investment. Who will provide the returns on the investments made by the casino operators in our town centres? It will be those who can least afford it, the people who think that their lives can be changed by a big win on the category A machines, and it has to be a lot of people if tens or hundreds of millions of pounds of investment is to be recouped.
	To answer again the point made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), I very much favour the early-day motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggesting that we should trial one of these resort destination category A casinos in one place—I would be more than happy for it to be Blackpool, which has made a good case for itself—and I hope that my words and those of other hon. Members will be listened to tonight.

Tony Banks: I assure the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) that a large category A win on a machine would certainly change my way of life, and I do not share the nightmare scenario that she has just described. I certainly do not know where she heard some of these wilder accusations about deals being done with the US casino industry by the Government. As an ex-journalist, her imagination is fertile, as are those of so many of her erstwhile colleagues.
	I declare my interests in this issue. I sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) who chaired it with skill and great fairness. I have also recently completed an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship at Ladbrokes. I hasten to add that my only financial involvement with Ladbrokes is that of a small albeit consistent contributor to its profit margins through my eternally optimistic betting on Chelsea winning 10-nil each week. One day it will come up and I will clear up as well. I might not have learnt how to beat the odds while I was at Ladbrokes, but I did come to appreciate how efficient, profitable and socially responsible a business Ladbrokes is, and I am certain that those attributes are also shared by other bookmakers such as William Hill and Paddy Power.
	While at Ladbrokes, I was afforded access at all levels, from boardroom through to betting shop, and I was left with the clear impression that the British gambling industry is one of the best regulated, and most orderly and efficient in the world. For those who have a moral objection to gambling, such virtues will be of no consolation, but gambling remains a leisure activity for the vast majority of those who participate, and it is essential that they should have confidence in the industry's probity. One of the main attractions of the British gambling industry for those at home and overseas is that it is overwhelmingly free of corruption and is not controlled by criminal interests. I wholeheartedly support the Bill because I believe that it will reinforce such a well-merited reputation.
	The reaction to the Bill, especially in the media, has bordered on the grotesque. I will always respect those with a moral track record against gambling, but spare me the anti-Government moralising of the Daily Mail. If the Prime Minister was declared to be the son of God, and there are some Labour Members who believe that he is, the Daily Mail would undoubtedly be whipping up support for the devil. On gambling, as on many other social issues, I am a libertarian. Providing an individual's activities do not imperil, attack or destroy the lives and interests of other individuals or species—or species—Government involvement should be minimal.
	Life is not of course simple and straightforward, and there will always be those who take any activity to excess, whether it is gambling, drinking, smoking, eating, shopping, or, indeed, sex. Such people need help, but I assume that we would not seriously consider banning the activities in order to protect the obsessive minority to the detriment of the responsible majority. In such situations, the Government's job is to offer advice and information to enable people to make informed choices, and where necessary the Government should regulate. That is precisely what the Bill sets out to do.
	I particularly welcome those parts of the Bill that seek to update casino rules that are both silly and patronising. The 24-hour membership rule is the most obvious example, but membership of a casino should be retained and that can be considered in Committee. I know that the British Casino Association would support that. However, if the Bill is defeated on Second Reading and there is no Committee stage, many of the good points made tonight cannot possibly be addressed.
	I find it strange that in London, for example, only certain boroughs, such as Westminster, Camden and Kensington, are allowed to have casinos. I personally would like to see a casino in the east end as part of leisure and recreational facilities. Indeed, in 1990 when I proposed in the House the idea of a directly elected mayor for London, which I believe was not universally welcomed at the time, I also proposed that part of the resources available to the mayor should derive from gambling profits in London. I recommended then, 14 years ago, the liberalisation of gaming laws to allow the setting up of municipally owned casinos in London and elsewhere, operated by others maybe and under licence, particularly riverboat casinos on the Thames, which would add to the attraction of the city. It is right that the city should be able to benefit from such things.
	I might add that one of the things that we should be doing instead of just granting licences is auctioning them, because one way of testing the market is by seeing how much people are prepared to pay. I saw, indeed see, no reason why local authorities should not derive substantial income and benefits from casino and other forms of gambling, and that is why I support the Bill.
	Much of the opposition to casinos, which we have spent much time discussing, has centred on their possible proliferation and the likelihood that this part of the industry will be dominated by American big business. The first objection is addressed by the Government's assurances with regard to regional local authority determination, although there is good support on both sides of the House for a planning strategy for casinos, and that too should be considered closely in Committee.
	The idea that the American industry will take over the whole of the British casino and gambling industry is alarmist. I have been reading newspaper stories about £100 million being lavished by US gambling interests on lobbying in this country, but I think that that is sheer fantasy and I can find no evidence of that whatever, and no one has put forward any evidence that that sort of sum has been spent, but it somehow fits in well with the semi-demented accusation by the Daily Mail that the Government are
	"sacrificing the most weak and vulnerable to the high priests of gambling".
	Such purple prose is rarely written before lunchtime.
	It might well be that the highly developed US casino industry will wish to invest heavily in the UK, but before it does, the Government should insist on a quid pro quo. At the moment, bookmakers in this country cannot accept sports wagers from US residents, either online or by telephone, nor do they accept casino, poker or other kinds of gaming. The federal legislation, the Wire Act, explicitly prohibits sports betting and, it is claimed, internet casino wagering as well.
	As we know, internet gambling is the fastest growing unregulated part of the British gaming industry, and it seems right that we should regulate it, but we should also try to persuade the United States to bring its gambling laws up to date. It is wrong that the Americans should have the right to refuse a business operation based in London, Gibraltar or elsewhere, and we should push them hard on that. If they are to have access to our gambling industry, we should insist that they bring their laws in line with ours. Officially, one cannot bet online or on sports fixtures in the US, but anyone in any bar in New York knows that in fact one can. The American gambling regime is much like ours before 1961.
	Under controlled and well-regulated conditions, gambling on football, racing and the lottery, and over the internet and in casinos, can be both harmless and fun. The Government should press ahead with the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not join the Opposition parties in voting against Second Reading, because if the Bill does not go into Committee, we cannot improve it. It will no doubt emerge improved, and in a few years' time people will wonder what all the fuss was about. I would certainly put money on that.

John Horam: The debate so far has been fascinating. The best speeches have come from the Back Benches. In particular, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was fluent and moving on the problem of gambling, and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) made a remarkably honest speech and seemed to be moving in the right direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who knows a lot about this, was also extremely good, and even the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who usually tries to whip us up, tried to calm us down and said some very interesting things.
	For myself, I am wholly opposed to the Bill. It is a bad Bill that promotes gambling, and it should be scrapped. The mood of the House has been clear, and even those who have supported the Bill in broad terms have said that there is quite a lot wrong with it. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) offered the most sensible compromise solution when she said that all the stuff relating to casinos should be scrapped and the rest kept. I might be prepared to go along with that, but the fact remains that this is a very bad Bill.
	The Government's strongest argument is that the status quo is indefensible, and they have attempted to portray all those who seek to defend it as fantasists. Frankly, there is not much wrong with the status quo. For the past 40 years or so, gambling has been well regulated and we have had fewer gambling addicts than in other countries. The situation is reasonably under control and people can enjoy themselves without going to the extremes seen in countries such as America and Australia. Of course, the status quo gets out of date from time to time, and I understand that internet gambling must be controlled, but why not have a Bill devoted to that subject alone? Let us deal with it head on. There is no need to change radically the whole basis of gambling regulation.
	The situation in this country is fundamentally satisfactory, and with occasional tinkering—perhaps quite major tinkering from time to time—we can avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater and keep what is good about the current set-up. Other countries are envious of what we have achieved: a balance between the liberal approach of allowing people to gamble if they want to and avoiding the damaging consequences that have become obvious in many other countries.
	The Bill will inevitably lead to a proliferation of super-casinos. Let us not forget where all this started: the mob wanted somewhere to launder their money, so Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky founded the casinos that are the forefathers of today's. Then America took it a step further and casinos were built in depressed places such as Atlantic City in the recession of the 1980s. I have full sympathy with the seaside resorts argument, and there is undoubtedly a problem in places such as Blackpool, but let us deal with that specifically—there is no need to change the whole scenario. Again, the Americans set up casinos on Indian reservations to help their depressed economies, and we have seen the consequences of such ideas in Australia as well.
	When the Government are told of the appalling growth of gambling addiction in Australia, they say, "Oh well, it would be different here." Frankly, I doubt it. Whatever regulation we have, I bet the inevitable market forces will break through and make maximum use of any gaps left in the legislation. I am the realist on this, not the Government. If they think that they can staunch the problem by regulation, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. The weight of demand will burst through.
	The Bill will inevitably lead to more crime. It was said in one newspaper—I do not think it was the Daily Mail—that in Atlantic City casinos equal crime, and crime equals casinos. It is a natural relationship because of money laundering, and drugs and prostitution follow. Atlantic City is a perfect example of what could happen in this country in areas around the casinos.
	As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, it is not a light matter that there are 300,000 gambling addicts in the country, and that number will inevitably be added to, despite what the Secretary of State says, by a growth in gambling. It is a great tragedy.
	I agree with those who have spoken about poverty. The fact is that the poor will suffer most from these measures, and it is a great pity. It is not patronising to say so—it is facing facts.
	There is clearly some truth in the regeneration argument, but at what cost? I suspect that casinos will be like the banyan tree: they will flourish at the expense of all around them. That is certainly true in Atlantic City, where there are 43-storey casinos surrounded by a wasteland of sleazy bars and so forth. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) pointed out how many hotels and restaurants had closed as a consequence of such development. It may look like regeneration, but it is not really. The idea that we have to rely on gambling to regenerate our inner cities is bankrupt. Surely we can do better.
	I am surprised that it is the Labour party that has introduced this idea—a party that owes more to Methodism than to Marx and once prided itself on its moral standpoint; a party once led by John Smith. Would John Smith have introduced such a Bill? I very much doubt it. This is the Government who introduced 24-hour drinking. What sort of society are they creating? This is the party that sneered at the encouragement of private enterprise when the Tories were in power, and they have now gone to the trashiest and commercial end of the unacceptable face of capitalism. That shows the real moral vacuum of new Labour, which just does not know where it stands.
	The Government and the Secretary of State have mishandled the Bill. All the evidence of the shenanigans of the past few days shows that she went too far in the direction of what the American and British companies wanted and had to pull back under pressure from the House and from public opinion. I applaud her willingness to pull back and to be flexible, but she was forced into it. I do not blame her alone: the Cabinet had some responsibility. They should have put their foot down and said that this would not wash.

Simon Thomas: We do not have Cabinet Government any more.

John Horam: I quite agree. Under Conservative Governments, we had a Willie Whitelaw factor—someone who said, "No, I don't think this will wash." Perhaps Labour now needs a Frank Dobson factor, with someone saying, "Look, this is not what the Labour party is about." I am very surprised that old or new Labour can support such a Bill. The Government should think again, scrap this Bill and introduce a new one to do the sensible things that are a part of it.

Geraldine Smith: The fact that the country's gambling laws need to be tidied up and brought up to date is not in dispute. Most Members will also welcome the proposal to consolidate into a single Act of Parliament all the legislation relating to the various categories of gambling. I am equally confident that the formation of a gambling commission to license operators and key personnel working in the gaming industry with significant powers to regulate, supervise and enforce high standards of conduct and social responsibility throughout the industry will be welcomed. The measure of democratic control given to local authorities by conferring on them responsibility for licensing gaming premises also has the broad support of Members of Parliament and of much of the gaming industry and the public at large.
	Having said all that, I believe that that is where consensus on the Bill in its present form comes to an end. The Bill's publication has triggered an outcry from Church and religious groups as well as charitable institutions and welfare organisations. It has caused anger and resentment in many parts of the leisure and gaming industry, and it has caused great alarm in the minds of many Members and among the public.
	The issue of greatest concern to us all is problem gambling. The British gambling prevalence survey suggested that we have somewhere between 275,000 and 370,000 problem gamblers. Gambling addicts, like those who suffer from alcohol and drug addictions, are usually in denial of the problem. Those who accept that a problem exists are keen to hide it. It is not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that the official estimate of the number of problem gamblers significantly understates the problem. Even if we accept the official estimates, taking the mid-range figure of one third of a million problem gamblers, most of those people will have parents, spouses, partners and children, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that in excess of 1 million of our citizens' lives have already been blighted by problem gambling.
	The Budd report highlighted many, but by no means all, the potential negative consequences of problem gambling, including financial hardship, debt, exposure to loan sharks, bankruptcy, resorting to theft, imprisonment, neglect of family, the breakdown of relationships, domestic and other violence, poor health, absenteeism, stress, depression, anxiety, suicide, burdens on charities and burdens on the public purse. We can all imagine the psychological scars left on the children of families whose lives are shattered as a result of a parent's gambling addiction.
	It seems to me that a top priority for the Bill should be the introduction of measures aimed at reducing the incidence of problem gambling and procedures designed to mitigate the effects of gambling. We must ensure that the Bill's passage does not exacerbate the situation by bringing about a significant increase in problem gambling.
	The Bill starts well enough. The measures to establish a commission and protect young people and children, as well as the promise of a gambling prevalence study every two to three years, show a commitment by the Government to tackle problem gambling. However, the lack of detail on what is to be done and how the Bill will be applied makes an objective assessment of those measures' effectiveness impossible. If the Bill were simply about establishing a gambling commission to oversee and regulate all aspects of gambling in Britain and to introduce measures to tackle problem gambling, protect children and transfer the licensing of premises from magistrates to local authorities, I would, even given the lack of detail, be more than happy to support it.
	Of course, the Bill does much more than that. It removes a number of regulatory measures, which will allow a significant expansion of gaming in Britain. The only limits to expansion appear to be market demand and local authority resistance. On one hand, we are considering a series of non-specific measures designed to tackle problem gambling, while, on the other, we are considering removing existing regulations to allow an unknown, but probably sizeable, increase in gambling. That will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in problem gambling. To allow a virtually uncontrolled expansion of gambling without having put in place and tested the protective measures that the gambling commission may introduce is, frankly, a recipe for disaster. I could not support that.
	Surely a far more sensible approach, as many hon. Members have said, would be to allow a limited number of pilot projects in designated areas and to evaluate their impact on gambling behaviour. That would present an opportunity to identify and address any problems that arose before the Bill's full provisions were introduced throughout Britain.
	It is self-evident that just as alcoholics do not become alcoholics by choice or overnight, but do so through repeated heavy drinking, so gambling addicts become that way because of repeated participation in gambling activities. It logically follows that increased participation in gambling among the population will involve a proportionate number of people who have the social, psychological and emotional characteristics that make them vulnerable to gambling addiction.
	I shall make a couple of observations about the Government's proposals for casinos. The first relates to the decision to allow alcoholic drinks to be served at gaming tables. I am very uneasy about the wisdom of that decision for two reasons. First, casinos tend to have a highly charged atmosphere, in which it is easy to get carried away. Consuming alcohol while gambling is fraught with danger, and it should not be encouraged. Secondly, having to leave the gambling area to have a drink provides an opportunity for punters to chill out and take stock of their situation. I ask the Minister to give further thought to that.
	The other issue that I wish to raise regarding casinos has caused much anger and concern in the gaming industry. It is the arbitrary and prescriptive way in which casinos have been classified. I am unable to detect any logical, moral or commercial imperative that led the Government to draw up their plans for casinos. I believe that those plans should be removed from the Bill and that the gambling commission, local authorities and the industry should be allowed to develop a limited number of pilot projects that meet the needs of the area in which they operate as well as those of the operators. They should be able to support the objectives of the gambling commission as stated in the Bill.
	Finally, I raised earlier this afternoon an issue that concerns me as the Member of Parliament for a seaside town and which causes similar concern to businesses that have amusement arcades in Morecambe and BACTA, which represents them. Clause 56 states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order create an offence of inviting, causing or permitting a child or young person below a specified age to use a Category D gaming machine."
	I must ask once more, because I do not think I had a sufficient answer earlier, whether the Government are really contemplating bringing in a law under which a parent could be prosecuted for allowing a child to roll a 10 pence piece down a chute or operate a crane in an attempt to win a small cuddly toy. If they do not intend to do that, why can they not remove clause 56? For what reason should it remain if it is not to be implemented?
	I hope that the Government will work with BACTA—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her 10 minutes.

Jonathan Sayeed: I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) on her speech. I wish to be equally frank and put my cards on the table.
	I do not believe that legislating to allow the proliferation of gambling is in the interests of individuals, communities or the country. Gambling is a particularly pernicious activity when it affects poorer members of society who cannot afford to lose, but who will always do so. The problems with the Bill are synonymous with the problems with gambling itself: it gives a little, but takes far more back and on an ever-increasing scale. The result? Only the Treasury in the short term and the casino companies in the long term are winners.
	The only value in the Bill is the attempt to modernise and streamline gambling laws that have been unreformed for 40 years. I welcome the establishment of a more powerful gambling commission and the extension of the legislation to cover internet gambling, although the proposals duck the worldwide nature of internet gaming. However, I fear that any winnings that could be reaped from such reforms will not be banked but lost, as deregulation permits a rash of super-casinos to be created across Britain, making the inclusion of measures to protect children appear no more than a sop to our conscience.
	The Prime Minister has estimated, we are told, that in the absence of a statutory limit the Bill will lead to between 20 and 40 new super-casinos with 24-hour access and unlimited jackpots. The Government have rejected the Joint Committee's proposals for higher minimum casino sizes and non-gambling facilities, even though those proposals would limit the number of casinos and where they could be. The Bill would leave casino corporations free to use section 106-type agreements to seduce cash-strapped local authorities and pave the way for what I would call a plague of casinos throughout the country, despite the Prime Minister's reassurances.
	Increased ease of access to gambling is the key problem. People will be able to gamble day or night across the country immediately they choose to do so. Prior to the Bill, the 48-hour, then 24-hour, cool-off period during which new members could not use casino facilities was deliberate. It ensured that the decision to gamble was a considered choice. The removal of that safeguard will allow people to act immediately, lured by the false promise of financial gratification or acting on impulse.
	Previous legislation was also based on the premise that gambling facilities would be sufficient to meet the unstimulated demand for them. In contrast to that, the Bill will sanction the development of casinos across the country, and that increased supply will in itself stimulate demand. That is a complete reversal of what went before.
	The Budd report recognised the link between deregulation of gambling laws and an increase in problem gambling. That connection has been well proven in Australia, where deregulation of the gambling industry, and in particular, the increased immediacy of access through slot machines at casino entrances has become a major cause of poverty. The cost to the community in Australia is 5.6 billion Australian dollars, on top of the 1 billion Australian dollars already staked and lost. The logic is indisputable. If something is more widely available, it is more easily available to people who risk becoming involved beyond their means. One does not need to be a bookmaker to realise that that is not a very good bet for this country.
	Problem gambling is defined as
	"gambling to a degree that compromises, disrupts or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits",
	and it affects some 350,000 individuals and their families across Britain. It would be splitting hairs to try to distinguish between problem gamblers and people with problems who gamble. The net effect is the same. Gambling addiction is best considered as a continuum—a slippery slope made more greasy as more opportunities to gamble exist. Ease and speed of access is provided and the pernicious promise of unearned, instant gratification is promoted.
	I am not an absolutist. I recognise that there is a considerable difference between a weekly £2 flutter on the football pools and gambling in casinos or online. However, the general principle remains. Gambling does not do individuals any good, nor is it to the common good. It does not increase the wealth of the nation, but sucks in and makes more destitute the poorest in our society, leaving them with nothing except the desire to try their luck again.
	Although I accepted the national lottery with some reluctance—we were told that otherwise we would be invaded by foreign lotteries—I continue to oppose, as I did then, scratch cards. The market at which they are aimed is nearly always those who can least afford them.
	Responsible opposition to the deregulation of the gambling industry should not be derided, as it has been, as an illiberal extension of the nanny state or snobbery. However, the fact that such initiatives are coming from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport raises the question: what type of culture the Government are trying to promote? Do we really want a culture that penalises saving and actively encourages the waste of gambling? My motivation for opposing the Bill is not puritanical but utilitarian. Any Government have a duty to reduce the harm that individuals can do to themselves and their families rather than to facilitate it.
	Why are the Government therefore legislating to deregulate casinos? We know that the promised regeneration that doing so may bring will not be cost-free, and will be undermined by the accompanying social degeneration. We know that 93 per cent. of the population are against the Bill and that the vast majority opposed casinos opening in their neighbourhood. In this instance one can acquit the Government of trying to be populist.
	The Bill, particularly the provisions on casinos, seems to be driven by a financial consideration, whether as an objective or a welcome side effect. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise collected £1,530 million in gambling duty between 1998 and 1999—22 per cent. of the gross gain in yield. It is estimated that by 2010 deregulation of gambling will have delivered at least £400 million a year more in taxes.
	Tax revenues from gambling, combined with the regenerative measures that casino companies will have to implement in exchange for planning permission mean that the Government's pockets will be lined by the deregulation. I can see no other reason for that relaxation in gambling. However, in years to come, the inevitable damaging impact of gambling will have to be dealt with and paid for. If the Bill becomes law, expensive initiatives will have to be developed and financed to combat the effects of gambling on individuals and society.
	The financial myopia of the Bill, and a desire for taxation by stealth, typifies the Government's entire strategy. They give with one hand, then take back far more with the other, while ignoring the harmful side effects. I hope that the House will reject this damaging, short-sighted and blinkered proposal, which would do some good, but would do a great deal of harm as well.

Frank Field: I salute the Secretary of State for being here today, given the sadness that she has been through recently, and for the example that she sets to others on the Treasury Bench. In her opening speech she said that she was prepared to listen, although the normal procedure is that when Secretaries of State have finished speaking and the Opposition start, they do not appear again until the winding-up speeches.
	Having listened to the debate, my right hon. Friend will know that there have been two themes that have knitted together almost every contribution to it. The first theme has been that there is no contention but that most of the Bill is needed to bring up to date the legal framework within which gambling operates in this country. Equally, there has been a concern about the possible or likely side effects of licensing mega-casinos, and I wish very briefly to develop three themes that bear on the consequences of those mega-casinos.
	It is significant that, in the arguments that the Government have used in defending the existence of that part of the Bill, they have not been playing the ball; they have been kicking the players. A number of allegations have been made against those who may oppose the introduction of mega-casinos in this country. It has been suggested that we might be against gambling. The record shows that I have supported every gambling Bill that the Government have introduced since I have been a Member of Parliament.
	It is also said that there is more than a whiff of anti-Americanism about those who oppose the casino proposals. When the Government are really under pressure on the Iraq war, they sometimes give the nod to the Lobby that I am prepared to go out and defend them. I willingly do so; I am proud of the special relationship that we have with America. I am just so sad that it is not strong enough for us to convince our American colleagues that there is a difference between policing and bombing. I speak as somebody who is very pro-American and who knows that Europe is free because of the lives that Americans gave, so there is no hint of anti-Americanism in what I have to say.
	Neither am I part of that lobby—it has had some recent conversions, thank God—that believes that people should not spend their own money. I cite just one example. Back in 1975, which I know is before many of my hon. Friends were born, I tried to persuade our party that our policy should be to sell council houses and use the revenue to build new stock. I was told that our supporters were not capable of managing their own homes. I find it just slightly galling that some of the people who say I am being patronising in opposing the new super-casinos opposed the sale of council houses in those early days in the belief that our supporters were not up to spending their own money and running their own lives.
	So none of those arguments holds as far as I am concerned, but the Welsh nationalists put a very serious argument earlier. What does it tell us about the Government's regeneration schemes if we now have to depend on mega-casinos to reach those parts of our poorest areas that none of our other regeneration policies has touched? I use the phrasing from a lager advert, which shows that I am a drinker as well. We have to accept the argument that the Welsh nationalists put in saying that, despite all the initiatives that the Government have taken to try to bring some of our poorest areas towards the level of the average areas of our society, let alone the richest ones, we have not succeeded as we had hoped.
	There is therefore an attraction for me in the Government's argument that we should think of mega-casinos as an agent of regeneration, but I do not believe that they can hold that line unless they are prepared to concede a cap on the number of casinos. If we have more than one casino in the north-west, no casino will be situated in Blackpool, despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). They will go to Manchester, Liverpool or some of the other richer places. Indeed, if more than one licence were granted, and one casino went to Blackpool and another went to Manchester, the Secretary of State would need all the resources that the armed forces have in this country to drive people up the motorway away from the Manchester casino and into Blackpool. Regeneration will not take place in the areas for which she is holding out hope in the Bill unless she is prepared to limit severely the numbers of super-casinos for the whole country, and I believe that she should limit them to one per region. I know that some of my hon. Friends will think that I am weak in thinking that we might have six or so pilots around the country, but I believe that experiments should be tried in each of our regions.

Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend consider another measure to which the Secretary of State—I say this while she is in her place—might like to like to give some thought? If the Government are serious about ensuring that the super-casinos can happen only with the will of the local communities and authorities, they should write into the Bill in Committee the ability for local authorities solely to determine any planning application and not allow the casino operators the right to go to appeal. We all know what happens when giant corporations can, in many ways, hold local councils to ransom over the planning appeal process.

Frank Field: We know precisely that, but I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier because of my fear that, under the European convention on human rights, she will not be able to hold the position of not allowing appeals. Although the Government will have a lesson dealt out to them by the referendum in the north-east—I think that we will get the result this week—I believe that the only way of guaranteeing that local people will have a say will be to give them a vote on this matter in a referendum. Even in the European Court, there would not have to be an appeal if the people themselves so decided.
	If we are serious about using the Bill as another agent of regeneration where all our other policies have failed, we cannot have more than one casino per region. Otherwise, the casinos will not go to the poorest areas; they will naturally go to those that are most attractive. [Interruption.] I shall speak very slowly so as to use the whole of the nine minutes and 43 seconds that I now apparently have. I had wanted to come within the target.
	My last point is about whether we should vote against the Bill on Second Reading. We heard a most helpful intervention from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who specialises in strengthening his own Front Bench, but I fear that his skills have beguiled some of my colleagues. The thought is that we are involved only in high politics, but our concern on Second Reading is on the principle. As to the thought that we might vote against the Government to try to influence them and risk the Bill, that is precisely what I ask my hon. Friends to do this evening. We have never defeated the Government. They know that, if they have a tough time on Second Reading, a number of us are prepared to vote against them in the Lobby and many more are prepared to abstain, and their hand will be weakened on Report. If my hon. Friends seriously believe they will get concessions from the Government severely limiting the number of super-casinos, the lessons of this Parliament teach them that they would not have got concessions on top-up fees or foundation hospitals. They may consider it a matter of principle that we vote for Second Reading, but we can argue with the Government and deal with the matter on Report.

Kevan Jones: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and agree with some of the points that he is making, but will he explain to me what principle would be served by throwing the Bill out tonight, together with all the good things in it, on which hon. Members from all parts of the House agree—the protection of children from internet betting and other issues that the public would support? What kind of principled stance would it be to throw all that out?

Frank Field: We will never throw the Bill out. We have never been able to throw out a Government Bill on Second Reading, but the more of us who tell the Government that we are unhappy with their proposal and that we will vote against it or abstain, the more power we will have on Report. Of course the whole House wants, say, 90 per cent. of the Bill. Should there be a major uprising and should the Government be defeated, we know perfectly well that they would announce from the Dispatch Box that they would introduce that 90 per cent. tomorrow in a separate Bill. They will not be defeated. That is not the issue. We do not wish to defeat the Government. What we need is a large vote against and an even bigger abstention, so that when we come to the Report stage the Government hand is so weakened that our wish will carry the day.

Gary Streeter: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and to agree with many of the points that he made. However, the award for the most profound and impressive speech tonight should go to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who captured the mood of the nation in his opposition to the Bill. The Labour Front-Bench team do not know quite what they are doing by introducing a measure that engenders so much deep opposition among so many of our communities throughout the land.
	I made my decision several weeks ago that, whatever my party said on the Bill, I would vote against it. I did not reach that decision lightly but I made it because I so profoundly disagree with the contents of the Bill and its potential impact, particularly on vulnerable people. I am extremely concerned that if the Bill becomes law, as I hope it does not in its current form, one of the obvious and almost immediate consequences will be a significant increase in the number of people who suffer from gambling debts and gambling addiction. I certainly did not come into this place to make life more miserable for our constituents.
	There is something about the Bill that takes the country in the wrong direction. I do not want to major on that tonight, but in addition to our many existing social problems, the impact of the Bill is not what we need. Following the right hon. Member for Birkenhead in his advice to colleagues on how we should go forward, I used to be in the Whips Office when we were in government and I know a little about how these things work. Colleagues who believe that we can vote for the measure tonight and that the Government will make major concessions in Committee, with the inbuilt majority that they will have on that Committee and with colleagues who are surprisingly placed to serve on the Committee for very particular reasons, are living in cloud cuckoo land. I strongly urge all hon. Members to follow the leadership of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and vote down the measure.
	Of course we want some of the better aspects of the Bill. I want them too, but, as has been said, they can be brought back very quickly either tomorrow or in the Queen's Speech and, with all parties supporting them, they can make speedy progress through the House and become law within the same time scale as is currently envisaged. Those who have profound reservations, as I do, about the impact of the Bill on vulnerable people have only one course of action open to them tonight: not to support the Bill, and to vote against it.
	I would support some kind of pilot scheme, whether in Blackpool or Great Yarmouth. Both places have massive attractions. Something that has never been tried in this country before should be tested, and there should be a pilot. I would not object to that, but what the Government are proposing is wrong.
	Like most of my hon. Friends, freedom and individual choice are my starting point in approaching a subject of this nature. We must also recognise that many people out there suffer disproportionately from the impacts of some of those choices. In respect of smoking, drinking alcohol, drug taking, access to credit and gambling we already restrict people's choices. We have laws about drugs, tobacco advertising, alcohol sales and gambling because of the individual and social consequences that would flow from a free-for-all. I make no apologies to those from the libertarian camp when I suggest that by continuing to restrict gambling, we are becoming or continuing to be a nanny state. We start from freedom and individual choice, but that is not the end of the matter. There must be protection. Freedom must be tempered with responsibility and order.
	It has been said that our current gambling regime is one of the tightest in the developed world. We also know that we have one of the smallest proportions of people with a gambling addiction and gambling debt. Those two facts are not unrelated and we disconnect them at our peril. If we were to vote the Bill into law, we would see a significant increase in gambling debt and addiction.
	I am not against gambling as a whole. I am not a great supporter of it, but I have the occasional flutter on the lottery or the Grand National. As far as I recall, I have never won anything. I am not in one of the Secretary of State's categorisations of people who are against gambling on principle. However, I am not in favour of the explosion of gambling that the Bill represents.
	As we have heard, up to 400,000 people have a problem with gambling and that means that many other people suffer within the circles of their families. Proposals to introduce super-casinos in accessible places—whether 20, 30, 40 or even more—and unlimited-prize machines, and to remove the 24-hour cooling-off period, are bound to increase the number of people who gamble and, therefore, the number of people who fall into gambling addictions.
	Whether we like it or not, gambling disproportionately affects those with the least disposable incomes. Recent research has shown that more than three times as many problems arise for gamblers in households where there is an income of less than £15,000 compared with those in households with an income of £32,000 or more. This July, personal debt in the United Kingdom topped £1 trillion for the first time. Citizens Advice tells us that it has seen a 44 per cent. increase in the number of people seeking help with debt problems over the past six years. Average household debt, excluding mortgages, is now £7,000 per household. Problems of personal debt are becoming worse by the day and the Bill would only add to the numbers of those who become mired in gambling debt and fall into unsustainability.
	Why would that happen if we passed the Bill? Experience in this country and elsewhere shows that, if we make it easier for people to do something, more of them will do it, even though that might harm them and their families. If the Bill becomes law, it will make it easier for people to drop into a super-casino that is placed in a highly accessible location, either in the high street or out of town. Is it fanciful to imagine that new super-casinos might be placed in a new development with a supermarket on one side and some sort of cinema complex on the other? They will be placed where people will be enticed to pop in once they have done their shopping or, even worse, before they have shopped for the family for the week.
	Many new players will be attracted by the prospect of a life-changing jackpot from category A machines. Less time to reflect on the consequences of stuffing money that someone can ill afford into a one-armed monster will mean that more people will, on impulse, do precisely that. The Bill will lure more people into casinos, and some of them into the swamp of addiction and debt.
	What will be the gain? Where does the pressure to allow these super-casinos and unlimited prize machines come from? Where are the public demonstrations in London demanding more gambling rights? Is this why we face every day the protest in Parliament square? Is that the noise that is being made? Are people demanding more gambling rights? I do not think so. The pressure, as we have heard, is coming from international gaming corporations that want to open our markets for their profits, as they have elsewhere.
	There is nothing wrong with making profits, but why should we open ourselves up to the inevitable social consequences that will follow just to add further to the already bulging waistlines of foreign fat cats? We should not go down that route.
	We have heard about the Australian experience. Of course, it is different from what we are discussing. Although the Secretary of State has tried to reassure us that there will be some sort of restriction because of market or industry predictions about the number of super-casinos, if no restrictions are placed in the Bill there is no guarantee that over the next five or 10 years there will not be a major casino in every community.
	The House feels strongly about this matter. The right thing for the House to do is to vote down the Bill on Second Reading. The right thing for the Government to do is to listen, take note and bring back a better Bill.

John Grogan: I am a gambler. I love gambling. I love the thrill of being beside the rails at a race track cheering my horse home or tearing up my betting slip in frustration. I love going to casinos to play roulette and I love going to Walker's bingo hall in Selby, which is one of centres of the community where people meet their friends. When the great Selby floods occurred three or four years ago, the community met in the bingo hall to discuss its response because the bingo hall was the only building big enough for the purpose.
	I hope that I will not be accused of being a snob or do-gooder if I express my profound doubts about aspects of the Bill. To paraphrase a former American President, "It's the machines, stupid." Frank Fahrenkopf, the president of the American Gaming Association, told the Joint Committee that slot machines are now the economic driver for the casino industry. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) was right that the Bill will be a massive culture change. At the moment, casinos in this country contain 800 category B machines with a maximum payout of £2,000; one new super-casino will contain more machines than that. No one in the British industry wants those machines.
	In the past few days, the British Casino Association has said that its reputation for integrity and honesty, the need for a low level of problem gambling and the recent public debate mean that no category A machines should be located in this country. The other casino operators' associations have long held that view, as has the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, so no British organisation based in the gaming industry advocates those machines.
	It is not hard to see why British gaming associations take that view. The Secretary of State discussed prevalence studies and examining experience, but experience around the world, whether in Australia or in America, shows those machines' potential addictive capacity. The Bill will allow rows and rows of machines to be situated in gambling warehouses. The machines are designed to mesmerise people and keep them making three or four pulls a minute to try to win £1 million.
	I do not want to be distasteful, but some big casino warehouses in the States change their carpets every three months, because some gamblers are so keen not to miss out on a win that they do not go the bathroom and stand in front of the machine all night. [Interruption.] It is distasteful, but it is true, and that is how addictive some of those machines are. We must examine whether we want category A machines in this nation and whether we should restrict them.
	One argument is that if one has doubts about the Bill, one is elitist and is stopping the emancipation of the working classes by preventing them from going to casinos. If one examines who goes to casinos—I do—it is a cross-section of the British population. Only 7 per cent. of people currently go to casinos, and BACTA conducted a survey of their social class: 26 per cent. are A/B; 31 per cent. are C1; 22 per cent. are C2; and 22 per cent. are D/E. People who go to casinos are spread around the regions, one third of them are women and they are ethnically mixed, so casinos currently attract a small but diverse percentage of the population. The argument that some parts of the country do not have access to casinos is strong, and I can understand changes to the permitted area system and having some new casinos, but not in the way envisaged in the Bill.
	I want to say a word about the Bill's implications for bingo. The bingo industry has tried, with some success in recent years, to build upon its strengths. What will happen to bingo as a result of the Bill? One cannot mix bingo, roulette wheels and machines in small casinos, but one can mix those activities in large casinos and really big regional casinos. The Government's regulatory impact assessment says that
	"the regulations may lead to the formation of combined bingo clubs and casinos with a gaming floor of over 1,500 square metres",
	which
	"might lead to an increase in machine gambling among C2, D and E income earners and a reduction in bingo admissions."
	It goes on to say that
	"a widespread conversion of bingo clubs to casinos, which offer greater opportunities for machine gambling for their profitability, presents a risk of an increase in problem gaming among present bingo players."
	We must think seriously about the extent to which soft and hard gaming should be mixed up. There is no need to be elitist about this. We can learn from the American experience—60 per cent. of all profits at Atlantic City are made from pensioners. The big casino companies bus in pensioners, offer them a couple of free games of bingo, then say, "You've got an hour to wait until the bus home—why not have a game on the slot machines?" That is the economic driver. If we do not have such a mix in small casinos, why should we have it in large ones?
	The question of whether size matters has been debated. As the Secretary of State said, the Government have raised the minimum size of small casinos to 750 sq m. They rejected the Committee's view that for regional resort casinos it should be raised to at least 7,500 sq m. If size matters among small casinos, why does it not matter at the top end of the market as well?
	This has been a fascinating debate in which virtually every Member—bar two, I think—supported a limit, to some degree, on large resort casinos. Almost no one adopted the Government position that it should be left to the market, because most of us recognise that this is a major, radical change that will, according to the regulatory impact assessment, benefit the casino industry but harm much of the rest of the gambling industry. There will be a series of unintended consequences across much of our social fabric. For example, many community pubs depend on small category C machines, and it is not clear whether those that serve food as well alcohol will be able to keep them.
	I urge the Government to think again and to put a cap on the number of super-casinos—a move that would have widespread support in the House. I take the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whom I will be proud to follow into the Lobby. We need to send the Government the message that unless they compromise in Committee or on Report, an amendment will be tabled to try to impose such a cap; and, given the tenor of today's debate, that could turn out to be an interesting vote. I therefore appeal to them to think again and to legislate in the interests of the entire nation—those who gamble and those who do not.

Robert Syms: I agree with the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) that this has been an interesting debate. The speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House show that there are substantial differences between us. The subject certainly stirs up a lot of passion. It makes a refreshing change to come into a Chamber that is relatively full by the standards of today's House. I know that many of those who want to participate may not have the opportunity because of time constraints, but it makes a substantial difference if Members are here listening to the arguments and a certain amount of dialogue takes place across the Chamber.
	As Members of Parliament, we all, through our constituency surgeries and mailbags, get a good handle on where there has been bad law in the past and what should be a Government priority in future. Gambling is not necessarily an area that I would have said we needed to jump into. I have learned a great deal during the debate from Members who have lived with the issue over a period of time. The legislation that the House has passed previously, which goes back principally to the 1960s, has done a pretty good job for this country and has lasted very well.
	At that time, the aim was to create a legal industry and to keep it away from crime. We have created a very successful industry in which last year £63.8 billion was gambled in one form or another, of which £7.8 billion resided with the industry—£3 billion for gaming, £2.3 billion for the national lottery and £2.5 billion for horse-racing associated gambling. There are also 130 casinos and a quarter of a million gaming machines in the country, so we do have a pretty successful industry. We have been left, however, with a bit of a compromise, in that gambling is available to those who go and look for it, but we do not have the kind of in-your-face casinos that entice us in with flashing lights and fountains that we see in foreign countries and places such as Las Vegas.
	The 24-hour membership rule means that people have to be pretty committed and think through the consequences before they go in and start gambling. This has been an impediment. I have always thought that that rule was a bit like the warning on a cigarette packet. Anyone who is tempted is made to think again and consider their position before they start to participate.
	I am sure that most of our citizens, being sensible people, like a bit of fun. We have heard that quite a few Members of Parliament like to have a bit of fun gambling small sums of money. However, gambling can be addictive, and some people have a problem with it. I think that we have all come across people who have gone out in the evening with their car and arrived home without it, or who have ended up having to pile up loans on their house. As politicians, we must pay attention to the fact that the consequences of the Bill could be very dire indeed for some people. The Henley Centre has suggested that there are about 400,000 addicted gamblers in this country, and has expressed concern that these proposals could lead to a considerable increase in that number. I do not think that we, as legislators, should lightly walk away from the possible consequences of what we are doing.
	The legislation that we already have on the statute book has passed the test of time pretty well and left us with a robust industry that is free of crime and works pretty well. We all understand, however, that the internet, remote communication and online gambling have changed the name of the game, and that there now needs to be a change in the law. I am sceptical, however, about whether we need to redo all the legislation. The moment we start to do that, we shall find that the vested interests of all sorts of people who benefit from the present legislation will be threatened. This applies to quite a lot of fish and chip shop owners in Poole, as well as to people who run takeaways and minicab firms, who might be surprised to lose their gaming machines.
	There is also widespread concern in the leisure industry, including the ten-pin bowling industry, and among certain pub people that, under the Bill as it is presently framed—we hope that it will be amended in Committee—they, too, could lose their gaming machines. Many of these are small businesses that derive a good percentage of their income from these machines, so the changes that the Government are trying to push through present them with a challenge.
	Members on both sides of the House have talked about the penny-pushers and the grab-a-toy and grab-a-gift machines in seaside town entertainment centres, which provide relatively harmless fun. These, too, could be encompassed by the legislation if we are not careful. Almost all the small businesses that have written to me have expressed some concern and many have made a pitch for grandfather rights in regard to keeping particular privileges. I hope that the Committee, when it gets to work on the Bill, will look carefully at the interests of the small businesses that will be affected by it.
	I have concerns about the super-casino concept because it would change the culture of this country. We must therefore be very careful about how we proceed. The history of our legislating on this matter is to be gradual and cautious, but the Government are departing from that in their present proposals. The suggestion of the Joint Committee that we should limit the number of casinos per region was probably more sensible, and the proposals from hon. Members on both sides of the House for pilot schemes in certain areas also have their attraction.

John Hayes: The Secretary of State has argued that the opposition to the Bill is born of snobbishness. It certainly is not; it is born of a concern for aesthetics, and for what we want our towns and cities to look like. I certainly do not want them to be dominated by pubs and clubs where people can drink all day, and by casinos where they can gamble all day and night. This debate is about what we want for our country, in terms of amenity and quality of life.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and many in the country would agree with his sentiments.
	There are difficulties in relation to what may be a massive increase in the number of machines and the increase in the number of casinos. We may be moving a little too fast, and I would want such development to slow down. As we have heard, if, as it appears under the current proposals, super-casinos can go to centres of population, they may go to more prosperous areas, which may mean that places such as Blackpool, which have been looking forward over the years to such leisure visitors, may lose out if centres such as Manchester are allowed to develop super-casinos. There is a dilemma over to how we allow larger casinos to develop.
	I am not a fundamentalist on this matter. In some of our seaside resorts, if casinos provided people with an added reason to visit, hotel rooms would be upgraded and the salaries of many local employees would increase, which might be a boon. If that development were replicated all over the country, however, it would not have the advantages of a place such as Blackpool because it would rely purely on local trade.
	The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was important—a local authority can reject any casino in its area. Once it gives permission for one, however, it is pretty much impossible to stop permission being given for further casinos. He also raised the problem of saturation. Of course, there is a market reason why there may not be saturation, but equally it may be that all the casinos pile into one area. On the south coast, for example, Poole might decide that it did not want casinos, whereas two miles down the road, Bournemouth might be saturated. That may be a decision of Bournemouth borough council, but it might have an implication for good or ill on my constituents in Poole. I see the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who represents an area a little further along the coast, is nodding. Those issues must be examined in detail in Committee.
	Other aspects of the Bill are welcome, such as tidying-up some of the lottery legislation, particularly, as was mentioned, in relation to hospices. I welcome parts of the Bill, but I have concerns about the general thrust and the spin that the Government have put on it, and which has caused such concern in some of our national newspapers. I suspect that we will debate the finer details of the Bill for some time. If I am lucky enough to be chosen to sit on the Standing Committee for the Bill, I hope to do my best to protect some of the small businesses in my constituency.

Jim Knight: It is a great pleasure to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), whose contributions in the House are always thoughtful. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests as chair of the all-party leisure group. In that capacity, I enjoy the services of the group's secretariat as provided by Business in Sport and Leisure, whose members include those who will be affected by this Bill.
	In addition to representations from the industry, like many other Members, I have received briefings from the Salvation Army and the Methodist Church, among others, as well as representations from constituents concerned about the negative effects of gambling and, conversely, from those wanting to protect their amusement arcade businesses. I very much welcome the Secretary of State's assurances on that earlier.
	While I do not envisage a super-casino adorning the shores of South Dorset, my constituents will of course be affected by the Bill. For example, if the Bill is passed, children in Weymouth will no longer have access to fruit machines suitable only for adults, kids in Portland will no longer be able to gamble on the internet as easily, and if a child in Swanage should manage to side-step those regulations, for the first time, those responsible for allowing that child to gamble will be liable to prosecution.
	Just as I welcome those new protections for children, I welcome the regulation for the first time of betting exchanges and fixed odds betting terminals. I also welcome the new industry-funded trust of £3 million each year to counter problem gambling, and the creation of a gambling commission that will monitor problem gambling and have the power to investigate, prosecute and enter premises, seize goods, void bets, levy unlimited fines and remove gambling licences. These new protections are essential in an industry that has been transformed by technological advance since legislation last came before this House in any substantive manner, more than 30 years ago. The legislation has to be modernised now, as many people have said, and we would be sleeping on the job if we did not act.
	I have been concerned for some time with problem gambling, hence parliamentary questions that I tabled in January about plans to ensure that the gambling industry funds a trust to help those with such an addiction. I have therefore observed from afar the problems in Australia, which some Members have mentioned. The recent modernisation of gambling in Australia is often cited as a reason not to enter into such a process in this country.
	In fact, the Australian model has served to demonstrate the dangers of unrestricted liberalisation under the banner of modernisation, and has proved a timely example of what not to do here in the UK. Problem gambling has soared in Australia because of the decision to allow high-end gambling machines in everyday high street locations, such as pubs, bars and restaurants. For example, in Victoria and New South Wales, there are no restrictions on these "pokie" machines, so exposure has risen dramatically. In contrast, the Gambling Bill proposes that machines be removed from 6,000 unlicensed high street locations. This is a completely different form of modernisation from the Australian pig in a pokie.
	Many Members would prefer that this issue simply go away, but contrary to what the media would have us believe, we are not introducing gambling to the unsuspecting UK consumer. Gambling is here now; it is popular and it is not going away. Many Members may not be aware of the extent of prizes currently available in bingo halls. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) spoke eloquently about bingo halls and I am sure that he has played the national bingo game. Some 500-plus licensed bingo clubs link up every night except on Christmas day, and prizes of £100,000 on weekdays and £200,000 on Sunday nights—the Sabbath—are offered. On selected occasions, prizes can range from between £500,000 and £1 million, and the highest pay-out so far in a bingo hall was £985,000. Indeed, it is ironic that although companies such as Gala and Rank offer those prizes as part of a national game of bingo, under this Bill such prizes in their casinos will be limited to only £2,000.

Mike Hancock: What does the hon. Gentleman expect the average spend to be in an evening in a bingo hall? I suspect that it will be no more than £15, whereas the average spend in a large casino in the United States is some $150 per person.

Jim Knight: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman asks that question, and I can tell him that the average spend in a bingo hall is £30 a week, and £60 a month in a UK casino. Individual punters in this country spend more on bingo than they do in a casino.
	Ultimately, most people realise that the best way to leave a casino with a small fortune is to go there with a large one. Despite all the opportunities that we currently have to gamble, the two angels have not yet descended on the gates of Sodom, and society is still intact. The UK has a successful and highly responsible industry, as many Members have said. The national debate thus far has seemed oblivious to this fact, and we can improve the Bill by building on the success of our domestic industry.
	Put simply, it is not the role of Government to restrict unreasonably or to suppress artificially an industry that has shown itself to be responsible. Rather, it is their role to create an environment in which business can thrive and individuals can act free from constraint, and in which regulations and safeguards ensure that the vulnerable are protected, and that the integrity of our social fabric is maintained over the long term. The Bill aims to strike that balance and I will vote in favour of it this evening. Given that 90 per cent. of it increases public protection from the negative effects of gambling, it is surely logical for Members from all parts of the House to give it a Second Reading tonight, and then to thrash out our differences over the other 10 per cent. during the remaining stages.
	In the second half of my speech, I will focus on that 10 per cent. I share the concerns expressed about letting the market determine the number of regional casinos. I am worried that we seem to be standing ready to throw the doors open to a plethora of relatively unknown, untested and outsized casino operators, with unproven social responsibility credentials here in the UK. I am concerned that the market free-for-all that the Bill would create in respect of regional casinos will compromise its aims.
	We currently have one of the lowest rates of problem gambling in the developed world. If we are to preserve that, we surely need to be able to monitor the situation as it unfolds. The currently favoured big-bang approach would not allow that, and it could therefore negate some of the protections introduced by the Bill, consigning them to the status of mere retrospective measures. We have the opportunity now to adopt a more gradual roll-out, allowing the progressive relaxation of regulations, while monitoring the effects and ensuring that the protections are effective. Why not take that opportunity?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that a more gradualist approach would also allow our indigenous business sector, with its well-deserved reputation for integrity, to leap in as a builder of this sector? It would allow our businesses to benefit themselves, as it is not open only to international investors. Internationally, not just America, but South Africa, Europe and others will be involved.

Jim Knight: I quite agree; that is precisely the tenor of what I am saying. A gradual roll-out would allow the established British industry to adapt to the new regulatory framework and to compete on more equal terms. Its solution would be to delay the introduction of category A machines or the capping of their stakes and prizes for an initial period. Meanwhile, the stakes and prizes for category B machines could be raised, perhaps up to £10,000, effectively narrowing the gap between large and regional casinos.
	I can see the self-interest in those proposals and I am cautious in case it negates the regenerative effect while allowing the later proliferation of category A machines in the existing 130 casinos. Their limited size would mean fewer actual machines than in the regional casinos, but I understand the Government's view that we should restrict the number of outlets and their geographical spread. Personally, I am attracted to the Joint Committee's alternative proposal of an aggregate national cap on the number of category A machines, as outlined earlier in the debate. However, those in the industry who argue that we should retain membership are correct. In that respect, I agree with those on both sides of the House. I believe that the directive on money laundering will require proof of identity, so there would be little extra regulatory impact in requiring membership. I agree with removing the 24-hour rule, but believe that membership adds a moment of reflection for the individual and a helpful form of control for the operator.
	Some sort of cap on the number of regional casinos, at least in the short term, would assuage fears of a gambling explosion and allow us to test the market over time. My constituent, Mr. Dave Harkison of Swanage, e-mailed me last week, suggesting a limit of two per region, which I think is pitching it in roughly the right place. That limit might be best achieved through planning.
	I very much welcome the effective veto that will be granted to local authorities to determine whether or not they will allow casino development in their area. I am pleased that the Government will introduce a new planning class use—a very helpful step forward. We must ensure that regional planning boards are effective and provide a strategic lead on planning. I support the proposal of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that regional planning guidance should provide the mechanism.
	Despite many questions and concerns that remain at this stage, I find much to welcome in the Bill. I regret that its purpose has been so misrepresented in the media and that media sensationalism has stymied real debate over the important issues. The blurring of the Government's message may account for some of the more extreme press coverage that we have seen, but we must reverse the process and inform the public of the Bill's true value. As I see it, the Bill provides more protection, more freedom and huge potential investment for the regeneration of downtrodden towns and resorts. I support the aims of the Bill. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, voting with her this evening and then seeing what can be done to limit the number of super-casinos.

Nick Hawkins: First, I have followed the debate on this area of the law throughout my time in the House. As the Minister and other hon. Members are aware, I have, not once but twice, been the shadow spokesman for my party on gambling—first when the Home Office was the responsible Department and again until May this year now that gambling is the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. My first involvement was as the Member for Blackpool, South in my first Parliament.
	I should refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, as many other hon. Members have done, but point out that the major part of my speech this evening will be about casinos. The British company that asked me to do some consultancy work for it after I left the Opposition Front Bench in May is not involved in that field, so there is no conflict of interest when I speak about casinos.
	My involvement in considering the original plans for resort casinos began when I was approached in the very early 1990s by Leisure Parcs, which was the pioneer of the concept in the UK. The main people behind the company—Mr. Trevor Hemmings and Mr. Marc Etches—came to the House at that time and gave briefings on more than one occasion to Members of all parties who had an interest in the matter. They pointed out the way in which resort casinos in other countries, particularly in parts of the USA, had successfully been used to create regeneration.
	The main burden of my views throughout the history of the Bill—the Budd report, the Government's White Paper, all the work of the wonderful Joint Committee, which as many have said has been so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and all the work by Members of all parties—has been to try to ensure regeneration. I share that view not only with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, but with my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is on the Front Bench and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), as well as with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) who is on the Government Back Benches.
	If the Bill is not right by the end of its parliamentary process, the great irony will be that the very people who have spent years trying to promote the idea of resort casinos might find that the areas where they have been trying to pioneer the concept do not benefit. As Members from all parties have said, if we do not get it right and mega-casinos are allowed to proliferate everywhere, the run-down resorts that most desperately need regeneration will not end up with super-casinos and will not be regenerated. That is why the Government were so unwise not to accept all the recommendations of the Joint Committee.
	In the short time available to me, I want to address one or two points that have not been mentioned so far, although the debate has been of high quality. Many influential Government Members in another place were members of my hon. Friend's Joint Committee. I welcome the concessions that the Secretary of State has announced today on such things as use class orders, and I want to consider the Bill constructively. I hope that I am lucky enough to serve on the Committee that will consider the Bill. I expect that it will be given a Second Reading because of the Government's huge majority, despite some Government Back Benchers voting against it, but I should point out that the Labour peers who served on the Joint Committee made it clear in all their work that they cared about regeneration just as much as I do. I therefore hope that in Committee the Government will be prepared to accept—at least to consider seriously—many amendments, because I suspect that if they do not do so, they will have to accept amendments from those influential Labour peers who served on the Joint Committee.
	Throughout my time dealing with the industry, I have worked closely with the British Amusement Catering Trades Association—BACTA. Its concerns, on behalf of small arcades and machine manufacturers whose businesses are not restricted to seaside resorts but can be in any town in the country, must be safeguarded. I share the concern that hon. Members have expressed that if we end up with a Bill that damages the existing casino, arcade or racing industries, the Government will have done a very bad day's work. I hope very much that we will not end up with such a Bill.
	I recognise in particular the importance of a national strategy on planning guidance, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale have rightly said. I hope that the Government will think carefully about how the Bill can be amended to ensure that casinos can provide regeneration and that they are located where that regeneration is needed most.
	I doubt whether I am the only hon. Member to suspect that the Government ignored the Joint Committee's recommendations because of the dreaded influence of Her Majesty's Treasury. One can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all the disapproval that he might initially have felt, given his background in the manse, for expanding casinos, telling Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, "If you must do this, I've at least got to maximise the tax take." I believe that that is why the Government have decided not to accept the Joint Committee's recommendation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is desperate for new tax revenue to plug the black holes that are becoming increasingly apparent in the rest of his policies.
	We support something that has a positive benefit, especially for run-down seaside resorts. We must be careful that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not get the planning guidance wrong. The planning confusion that the Joint Committee's report clearly sets out poses a genuine danger.
	Regeneration must happen in a way that is similar to successful examples in some cities in the United States. With other hon. Members, I had a presentation from the mayor of one of those cities. If I recall correctly, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who chaired the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I now sit, said that the Bill should include something akin to a section 106 agreement. Such a provision would enable the money that the casinos make to be hypothecated so that local communities get it. The Treasury and Governments of both parties have had a fixed objection to anything that smacks of hypothecation. However, it needs to happen. We now have some forms of hypothecation, for example, the use of money that is raised by speed cameras and the congestion charge.
	The Secretary of State has been under huge pressure from her Back Benchers about the needs of the seaside arcades, the need to keep crane machines and coin-push machines, the potential problems for pubs and the need perhaps to allow the lowest category of machines to stay in fish and chip shops and pubs. On the basis of research, we do not perceive any great danger from those but there are potential difficulties, in the view of many trade associations, in the case of a massive proliferation. Several hon. Members have spoken about the dangers of organised crime and the problems of the so-called FOBM and FOBT machines.
	I agree with the comments made early in the debate by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). She spoke about the need for Blackpool and similar resorts to reinvent themselves. If the Bill is amended sensibly in Committee and the Government accept the sort of proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and the Joint Committee made, we can get the measure right and provide for regeneration.
	I want briefly to make a couple of other points. The British Horseracing Board suggests that the Bill provides an opportunity to deal with so-called sleeper bets. As a long-standing member of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock, I believe that the Committee stage could helpfully deal with that.
	All those with an interest in racing will be worried by the news last week from a senior police officer, who is in charge of the current inquiry into some people who are involved in racing, that further arrests have taken place and that those under investigation now number more than 100. The huge inquiry will continue well into 2005. I shall not comment on any matters that are sub judice, but for the good name of racing, it is crucial that it is perceived to be a clean sport. I believe that it is 99 per cent. of the time. However, the Bill could stop betting on horses or dogs to lose. That would be helpful.

Andrew Dismore: I am not much of a gambler. The last bet that I placed was on the outcome of the 1997 election—I like to bet on certainties. However, I am a trade unionist and I want to approach the debate from a slightly different angle: the perspective of the casino worker. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which supports my constituency party and is one of the main unions that organise casino workers in the United Kingdom. Currently, 90 per cent. of casino operators in the UK are trade union-organised.
	In partnership with the Transport and General Workers Union, the GMB has formed an alliance with Unite Here, the United States trade union that organises casino workers on the other side of the pond. It has provided valuable advice and assistance to the UK unions in approaching the debate. It showed that casinos can be significant creators of new jobs. We are considering not only jobs at the gaming tables but a range of ancillary services, for example, in catering and hotels. Those staff and services make a wider contribution to the regional economy. That, however, depends very much on how the industry is regulated, and the approach to the work force. A good employer can create worthwhile careers and decent conditions for casino workers; a bad employer means exploitation, poverty wages and appalling working conditions.
	That is illustrated by two examples from America. In Mississippi, the superficial reality is that when casinos were allowed tourism increased, as did tax revenues for local communities; unemployment declined, and there were more jobs. The real reality, though, is that the fastest-growing jobs were low-wage jobs; erratic and round-the-clock work schedules made child care difficult; and jobs were of poor quality, with unstable work loads, limited prospects for long-term stable employment, and little hope of career advancement.
	Contrasting evidence comes from Atlantic City, about which we have heard a good deal in a different context. All 12 casinos there are union-organised. Between 1977 and 1996, the income of casino workers—cooks and housekeepers—increased by more than 100 per cent., compared with only 16 per cent. for similar workers in the state of New Jersey more generally.
	I believe that companies with bad employment records should not be allowed to operate in the United Kingdom. An example is the Las Vegas Sands casino, whose chief executive is a man called Sheldon Adelson. I have seen a detailed briefing on his activities, provided by Unite Here's research department. It is pretty horrific. He has been described by the Las Vegas Review-Journal as
	"perhaps the most vilified man in Nevada."
	He has been involved in repeated conflicts with governmental and regulatory agencies. Earlier this year the Nevada Gaming Commission imposed a $1 million fine on the Venetian casino, which he owns, for rigging contests and violating other Nevada gaming regulations. He is in ongoing litigation with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over issues dating back to 1999. He is an extremely litigious individual. I suspect that the Government's triple-lock proposals would lead to a number of legal challenges and judicial reviews should he be allowed into the UK.
	Mr. Adelson has come under fire over working conditions, for failing to remit proper back pay, and for attempting to have workers and their supporters arrested for protesting. He subcontracts a substantial number of jobs, with substandard wages and benefits. He uses his wealth to try to oust politicians who cross him—so I am probably on his hit list now, as some other Members may also be after tonight. He has repeatedly been characterised as difficult to work with, and as
	"terrorizing those who get in his way."
	That is the sort of person whom we could end up dealing with. We must ensure that such operators have no place in the UK's gaming industry.
	The gambling commission must be required to take into account a casino operator's previous employment practices—overseas if necessary—when deciding on an application. I believe that there should be at least two employee representatives on the commission to represent the interests of the workers in the industry. An applicant should be required, in particular, to show that he has enhanced family-friendly policies to compensate for the unsocial hours that casino workers have to endure, and that he pays due consideration to the health and safety of staff—especially as casinos will no longer be "member only", and there could be much looser controls of customers and the risk of assaults by dissatisfied customers. There should be help with travel arrangements for those who must work late and antisocial hours; and there ought to be a smoke-free workplace for those who must work such long hours.
	Operators should also be expected to provide decent careers and training opportunities. There are good examples of that in Las Vegas, where a scheme administered jointly by the union and casino operators has financed a job training school for catering workers. Some 2,500 students take advantage of the programme each year, and the number is expected to double over the next couple of years. That is a good example, but I think a training levy would be a more effective way of ensuring that those who work in casinos have proper career opportunities.
	It is likely that national lottery income will fall if people use other forms of gambling. I think that casino operators should also be expected to replace any losses sustained by the lottery through a levy for a good causes scheme to support charities that might otherwise lose out.
	I share many of the reservations that have been expressed about the expansion of the casino industry with the regional super-casinos. It is important that we consider the number of casinos that will allowed, but if, as I think is inevitable, there are more casinos, whether on a pilot scheme or regulated by legislation or the market, we must ensure that those who work in the casinos are properly looked after, that their interests are represented by the gambling commission and that we do not import into the United Kingdom rogue operators, but operators who will provide a decent working environment for their staff, with decent careers and decent job opportunities.
	If casinos are properly regulated, they can make a major contribution towards employment in Britain and towards economic regeneration, but that depends on their being properly regulated. I hope that those views will find favour with the Government and that we will see some amendments to the Bill as it proceeds to protect the interests of casino workers.

Adrian Sanders: The origins of the Bill were to provide Blackpool, and probably no more than Blackpool, with a resort destination casino, and for the past two and a half to three years, Blackpool has campaigned hard to be considered for that resort destination casino.
	If one looks at resort destination casinos in Las Vegas, one sees an interesting product, which is not just about the gambling floor but which offers a wide range of entertainment to people of all ages, with subsidised restaurants to attract families and with subsidised accommodation so that people spend as much as possible on the gambling floor. I do not think that anyone here has an objection to the high quality environment that exists in Las Vegas being transported into the United Kingdom. The objections come when we move to the Bill where the idea of one resort destination casino has changed to possibly 20 or 30, and, it has even been said, 40 regional casinos.
	I am pleased that the Government have listened to at least one part of the protest that has raised its head in these proceedings, and, in particular, what Liberal Democrats were calling for in relation to category D machines, which the Government have now conceded can continue to operate, but, according to the Secretary of State, a reserve power will be kept. There is a problem with that in that an amusement arcade operator will think twice about investing in future category D machines. That power could well lead to uncertainty, and we may have pushed the Government halfway there to at least conceding that category D machines should not be included in the Bill, but we now need to push them a bit further not to have that reserve power in the hands of the Secretary of State so that those amusement arcades are safe.
	I want to raise an issue that no one else has raised and that is the position of offshore water-based gambling on ships. Would a vessel that is permanently moored be a regional casino under the Bill and, if it was moored in one place and then moved to another, which local authority would license it? It is not beyond the realms of possibility that an entrepreneur could convert a vessel into a casino and moor it within our territorial waters, providing a shuttle service to land in order to maximise the reduced costs of operating a casino at sea and to get round some of the tighter regulation that the Government rightly pride themselves on having included in the Bill. I should like to know whether the Government have considered that possibility. There is also the possibility of riverboat casinos, which may be small casinos, but the question remains as to which local authority would grant the licence.
	We have heard that the Bill creates a new gambling commission, which will have responsibility for regulating all forms of gambling. The Secretary of State said that it would have the duty to oversee those who wish to enter the gambling industry. As the Government's proposal for lots of casinos is aimed at bringing in money from overseas—mostly from the United States—I wonder whether it should be based in Las Vegas rather than in Newcastle upon Tyne, at least for that part of its work that involves investigating the background of those who want to operate casinos in this country.
	The Government say that the Bill will increase opportunities for adults to gamble, while decreasing opportunities for children to gamble. They say that the expansion will bring economic and regenerative benefits. In a few resorts, casinos may well do that, but I cannot see—I have not heard a strong case for it tonight, nor have I seen any evidence to support the Government's case—that 20, 30 or more regional casinos would bring such benefits.
	The new casinos could be huge buildings incorporating not only gambling facilities but restaurants, stage entertainment, retail outlets and even housing, and unlike other casinos, they will be allowed to have category A gaming machines with unlimited jackpots. Those who have not visited a category A environment, as found in the United States, do not know what they are letting themselves in for. These places are geared to maximise the amount of money that people spend, and they operate for 24 hours a day in a windowless environment with no clocks in sight.
	There is clearly a need to reform our gambling laws, which pre-date the internet and the concept of online betting. There is also a case for relaxing the 24-hour membership rule for small-stakes bingo, whereby holidaymakers in my constituency, for example, have to be turned away from bingo halls unless they applied 24 hours in advance. Nobody argues that the laws do not need some reform, and we welcome parts of the Bill, but we have major concerns about the casino proposals. It strikes us that it is no coincidence that the UK, with the tightest rules on gambling in the world, has the lowest rate of gambling addiction per head of population.
	The right of individuals to choose whether to use casinos has to be balanced against the potential social cost of gambling, and especially so-called problem gambling. Indeed, it has been estimated that each problem gambler costs the state £35,000. Government research shows that casinos in accessible locations that offer casual gambling pose a heightened threat of gambling addiction.
	Other social costs can include late-night noise and disturbance, but local authorities do not have sufficient powers to consider those factors in licensing casinos, while in contrast, the new alcohol licensing laws allow for refusing planning permission on the grounds of public nuisance or saturation. I hope that that can be considered in Committee, if the Bill gets there.
	I fear that, unless it can be amended, the Bill will open the door to mainly US-run and owned super-casinos with no real stake in the community other than a mission to extract as much money as possible from punters' pockets. With it could come the associated crime and criminality of the Las Vegas underworld. I fear that the Government's claim that they wish to encourage economic regeneration will in fact lead to social degeneration. The idea that seaside resorts were at the heart of the original proposals will fall by the wayside. If major cities are allowed to have super-casinos, that is where the punters will stay. They will not be attracted to the seaside resorts.
	I suspect that the Government are going down this route because they are looking for a mechanism to achieve the economic regeneration of, mostly, inner cities without having to increase taxes. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches know that you get what you pay for. The Bill could be something for which we end up paying a very high price indeed.

Gordon Prentice: I have only a few minutes in which to sway the House with a couple of points. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked rhetorically whether there were not enough gambling opportunities in Britain already. I remind the House that Britain has more casinos than any other European country except France. There are more casinos here in London than in any other capital city. The Government now invite us to add more regional casinos, which is the big bone of contention that divides so many of us on the Labour side and the Opposition from the Government.
	The solution is to split the Bill in two: 90 per cent. of it is non-contentious—let it sail through. If we are told in few moments' time that that cannot happen, I shall vote against my own Government with a very heavy heart. I shall not vote for Second Reading. [Interruption.] Some of my colleagues are chortling, as they would, but let me tell them why I will do that. They will have read the briefing from Citizens Advice on the link between gambling and over-indebtedness. It said that the Bill will be a real kick-start to compulsive gambling in this country, and that is not funny at all.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said, we are talking about a completely new phenomenon—one-armed bandits with unlimited payouts. Someone on the Opposition Benches spoke of a gambling environment where people cannot distinguish between night and day: that means 24-hour gambling and the glittering promise of multi-million pound prizes that will draw people in. We—a Labour Government, for God's sake—should not be doing that. We have more important things to concentrate on.
	People talk about problem gambling. The Henley Centre tells us we have about 370,000 problem gamblers, and it forecasts that that number will rise to 700,000 by 2007. Without the Bill, it says, the increase would be much shallower. If we pass the Bill—let us not kid ourselves—we will see an exponential increase in problem gambling. People ask why that should happen here where we have tightly regulated gambling. Just look at what happened in Australia, which does not have such constraints. About 0.8 per cent. of United Kingdom gamblers are problem gamblers, but in Australia it is 2.3 per cent.
	I am not being disloyal to my own Government; I think I am being a candid friend in saying that they should let us have two Bills. If they will not do that, we must vote the Bill down.

Malcolm Moss: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and his Committee for their outstanding work. It has been said more than once that if the Government had listened more carefully to the Committee's recommendations, particularly those in its second report, they would not be in the mess they find themselves in.
	Modernisation of the gambling laws is long overdue. The current law has been overtaken by technological changes such as the availability of internet gambling and betting exchanges. We accept the need for change to address such issues. We also support the Bill's stated objectives of protection from harm, fairness and prevention of crime and disorder resulting from gambling.
	As our reasoned amendment sets out, we do not support the parts of the Bill that discriminate against our indigenous British industry, which has worked hard over the past 40 years to establish a reputation for responsibility, probity, integrity and safety. It is surely the role of Government, when introducing new legislation, to promote a level playing field and a licensing and regulatory regime that does not discriminate against British-based operators in favour of foreign-based investors.
	Inward investment is welcome, but it should be balanced, fair and complementary. It is disingenuous to argue, as the Government do, that new investment in regional casinos is open to all, when one group of potential investors is working with one hand tied behind its back. Existing casinos will not be able to compete if the Bill remains unchanged, since it denies them any category A machines. It is generally accepted that the presence of such machines will bring the punters over the threshold. Indeed, so crucial are such machines to the development of the resort or regional casinos that the Americans have told us that they would not contemplate investing here unless they had access to them.
	To continue that theme, concern has been expressed in the press about special treatment being afforded to foreign-based casino operators, largely American, who have perhaps been offered the carrot of favourable tax treatment on the one hand, and on the other a strong Government lobby to improve anti-money-laundering EU directives. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). The Association of Chief Police Officers has also made representations to the Government about money laundering. It is vital that the Government assuage any fears in the industry that they are doing anything that could be interpreted in any way as favouritism.
	There is also the question of the Government's true motivation in introducing the Bill now, which several hon. Members raised. Indeed, there seems to be confusion at the heart of the Government over why they are doing so. The Government told the Joint Committee that a key aim of the Bill was to raise revenue, which was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) raised. However, a special adviser in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport contradicted that by saying that the expansion of regional casinos would be revenue-neutral.
	The Government make much of the potential for regeneration. Indeed, at times they seem to be positively seduced by the prospect of substantial investment in deprived areas. Regeneration, however it comes, seems extremely attractive on the face of it, not only to run-down and deprived areas but to the many local authorities that are looking to promote economic development in their areas.
	The hon. Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) posed the essential question: what is the definition of regeneration? Is it to be consistent and recognisable in each region of the country? Does the planning system allow for measurable benefits to accrue from permissions for regional casinos?
	To move on from that point, but to remain with planning, there is an unanswered question about section 106 agreements. Are they morally right? My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about planning permissions being predicated on handouts and enticements generated from the profits from gambling.
	Perhaps the key question relating to regional casinos is that of proliferation—a matter raised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth and for Selby (Mr. Grogan). The Joint Committee sought in its second report to address that problem by setting for regional casinos threshold sizes of a minimum overall floor area of 7,500 sq m, of which 4,000 sq m would be used for non-gambling activities. The Government chose not to accept that recommendation, but in doing so failed to address the potential for proliferation. That is where their public relations started to go badly wrong.
	Given the problems of gambling addiction, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised, it is surely necessary for the Government to have a view on the potential accessibility of gaming machine gambling. That means that they should not only have a clear view of what would be an appropriate number of regional casinos—and hence on accessibility of category A machines—but establish and promote clear unequivocal mechanisms in legislation that will achieve their objectives. Many hon. Members spoke out against leaving that to market forces, and the Government's failure to give a clear steer on that question is at the heart of their credibility.
	Several hon. Members argued that the control of numbers could be achieved by putting in the Bill a cap on the number of casinos. That could be done in a number of ways, either as an absolute number overall or as a limit per region—say, two—with regional planning authorities and local authorities determining the location of casinos through existing or amended planning legislation.
	Other hon. Members asked for pilot schemes or trials in one or two locations, but these proposals are light years away from the Government's expectation of having from 20 to 40 regional casinos. Who came up with these figures? Many hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders)—questioned the rationale behind the assertion made, and no conclusive arguments were forthcoming from the Government, so we are left concluding that there is no rationale, and the Government are left looking at best disingenuous and at worst incompetent and uncaring.We are being asked to take a quantum leap into the dark, and I get the strong impression from tonight's debate that a significant number of hon. Members are not prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this issue.
	Labour Members have challenged the Opposition many times during the debate not to vote against Second Reading. If they really want reasons for voting against it, they should look no further than the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Bridgend or, for that matter, the voting intentions of some of their own Back Benchers. Given the track record of this arrogant Government, why should we trust them to allow the fundamental changes that we require in Committee to the clauses that we strongly oppose, which chiefly relate to regional casinos?
	This Bill leaves too many unanswered questions. What is to be the tax regime? When will the Treasury publish its proposals? What could be the effect on indigenous British casino operators? How many regional casinos will there be? Why should we believe assurances of close working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on planning issues? What is the scale of potential increase of gambling addiction? These and other questions trouble the House as a whole. They may cover only a proportion of the Bill, but they are disproportionately represented in the scale of their potential impact. Given the record of this Government, we believe that the only way to bring about change is to challenge their fundamental thinking head on. That is why we shall not support them on Second Reading this evening.

Richard Caborn: This has been an encouraging and, to a large extent, constructive debate. Some 30 Members have contributed, for which I thank them. The quality of the debate reflects the concerns and interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) put a very strong case in arguing for no change to a large extent. That reflects an attitude something like that of my mother, who is a very strong Methodist and is 87. She gave me a lecture when I took her to church a week last Sunday on why there should be no change. Such matters split families as well as the House, but I genuinely look forward to continuing the lively debate in Committee, because I believe that that is where these changes can start to take place.
	I want to remind the House where we have come from in the past five years. Five years ago, Professor Budd was asked to look at gambling in this country. The Lords deregulation Committee asked him to do so, and many people were concerned at the time that remote and internet gambling had to be brought under control and addressed in law. In 1968, a Labour Government had to legislate to bring gambling under control, remove it and clean it up. Indeed, I believe that Budd, "A Safe Bet for Success" and the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—I congratulate the Committee, which worked under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)—brought to the House considered work, along with a Bill that will restore control over gambling. That has been central to the Government's thinking, as it was in the 1960s. We must do the same at the beginning of the 21st century. More importantly, we must look at legislation that can respond to the ever-changing needs of society as it is today.
	I ask Labour Members who are thinking of voting against the Bill to look at Budd, the work of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and what we said in "A Safe Bet for Success". This is about protecting the vulnerable. The three principal parts of the Bill are protecting children and vulnerable adults, keeping gambling crime free and making sure that gambling is fair and open. That has been the bedrock of this—

Andrew MacKinlay: The candyfloss society. That is what Harold Wilson called it.

Richard Caborn: It might have been the candyfloss society in 1968 when Harold Wilson introduced the Gaming Act and brought gambling under control, as we will.
	Let me deal with the key points raised by hon. Members on the capping of regional—

John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Richard Caborn: Unfortunately, I cannot give way. I have only 10 minutes left. Those on the two Front Benches have tried to get as many Back Benchers in as possible. That was the condition.
	Some have suggested that the national cap on regional casinos ought to be 20 or 30. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained the tough triple lock that we are putting in place through the Bill. First, there will be the gambling commission. Then, under clause 157, there will be local powers for a licensing authority to say no if it wants no new casinos. Finally, there will be a tough planning system. We are confident that this combination will put casinos in the right place, run by suitable people, and keep them out of places where they are not wanted.
	A number of hon. Members spoke about the Government acting together. The combined planning and licensing systems will achieve regeneration in the right place. Regional planning bodies will be able to specify suitable locations for regional casinos. Several hon. Members asked how those could be directed to places of need. If casinos are proposed outside the appropriate areas, the proposal can be referred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	We have strengthened the planning regime further with the announcement from the Secretary of State of the use class order, so there will be no escaping the location controls that we envisage. Suitable locations for regional casinos will be considered by regional planning bodies. If they think regional casinos can help to regenerate seaside resorts, they can guide developments to those areas.
	It has been interesting to hear the numbers bandied around. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggested a formula for one or two casinos per region. With nine regions, that would make 18 regional casinos, plus Scotland and Wales, which would give a total of 22. The bottom line proposed by the industry is about 20—between 20 and 40. The official Opposition Front Bench spokesman spoke of regionalisation. The official Opposition and the Liberals intend to vote against Second Reading, claiming that we will not direct the proper number of casinos to the regions, yet their proposals would produce more regional casinos than projected by those in the industry.
	The risk to problem gamblers was another topic of concern. If there is a risk to problem gamblers because of the location of casinos, the gambling commission can advise against licensing them in those locations. The licensing authority must have regard to such guidance. I am trying to answer serious questions that were posed about the potential for development on estates in built-up areas to encourage problem gambling. That would be covered by the commission's guidance on licensing, and we would expect it to act accordingly.
	The hon. Member for Bath asked about individual applications and how they could be rejected. They can be rejected under clause 157. We have said clearly that that would not contravene any European measure. To suggest otherwise is to mislead the House. The provisions of the Bill would enable local authorities to take action so that casinos were not located in built-up areas.
	If we had taken the Budd review at face value and incorporated its recommendations in the Bill, many Opposition Members would have argued forcefully against the proliferation of casinos, because that would have meant many more small casinos than proposed in the Bill. The Joint Committee's recommendations would have meant more casinos, with category A machines being used in the large casinos. It is estimated that the recommendations would have doubled the number of casinos. We have taken a cautious approach, and a number of Members asked us to do so. We estimate that the increase will be about a third. Given the Budd report, the outcome of the scrutiny Committee and the contents of the Bill, we have taken a cautious approach.
	There are real concerns, and there are some who have had the opportunity to visit Australia, where gambling has got out of hand. The Australians deregulated in a way that even they wish they could roll back, but that is difficult. We took a great deal of advice from people in Australia and throughout the world, and that is why we have adopted our approach. One of the recommendations from the Joint Committee that we did not accept was a 3:1 ratio for machines to tables. We have proposed 2:1. We tightened up on that recommendation. The Joint Committee recommended category A machines in all casinos and we have recommended such machines in only regional casinos. Again that is a cautious approach and a tightening up of the process.
	The Joint Committee recommended an increase in stake and prizes for machines in small and large casinos. We have kept them at their present level, which we believe is the right approach. Via the gambling commission there can be an incremental release over a period if it thinks that that is necessary. We have, as it were, moved back from the Budd report and from the Joint Committee and we have a much more cautious Bill than the measure that would have been if the recommendations of those two bodies had been taken forward.
	The hon. Member for Bath talked about the Human Rights Act 1998 being used to resolve local conflicts. We have checked that through and we believe that what the hon. Gentleman said was incorrect. Local authorities are allowed to consider more than the three licence objectives when resolving local issues on casinos. They are able to take the views of local communities into account. They are unable to do anything that is unlawful or irrelevant to them.
	Some red herrings were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that sports would be denied revenue from the machines. That is totally untrue. The situation will be exactly the same as it is now. There was a lot of debate about working men's clubs—

Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Richard Caborn: I said that I would not give way to anybody, so there are no exceptions to that.
	Working men's clubs, Conservative clubs and British Legion clubs made representations. We shall ensure that they are protected and will continue to be protected.
	The Budd report recommended removing arcades from seaside resorts. We have not done that. I believe that there are effective proposals for the regeneration of casinos within the Bill. We can get on with regional regeneration in a way that many would want, particularly those in resorts.
	Registration for casinos and members' clubs is allowed. Any casino that wants to run a registration system can continue to do so. The matter could be up to the gambling commission. If it believed that that was desirable within the licensing structure, it could ensure that that would be the position.
	The Bill sets out a clear direction for bringing gambling under control again, as we did in the 1960s. If Members vote against Second Reading, they will be allowing young people—children—to be exposed to internet gambling, to remote gambling, in a way that would be wrong and irresponsible. We can take the other parts of the Bill on board. We can deal with the issues relating to regional casinos in Committee. I am sure that we can find a solution to the problems that have been raised.
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see an hon. Member using a mobile phone. I instruct him to leave the Chamber.

The House having divided: Ayes 183, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
	The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

GAMBLING BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Gambling Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 11th January 2005.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 172.

Question accordingly agreed to.

GAMBLING BILL (CARRY-OVER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29 October 2002 (Carry-over of Bills)],
	That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Gambling Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 172.

Question accordingly agreed to.

GAMBLING BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Gambling Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(1) expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

GAMBLING BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Gambling Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the imposition of a levy to be paid by holders of operating licences and to be expended on social projects connected with gambling,
	(2) the imposition of a penalty on holders of operating licences who fail to ensure compliance with licence conditions, and
	(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

General Arrangements for Excise

That this House takes note of European Document No. 8241/04, Commission Report and draft Council Directive relating to Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products; and welcomes the principle of reducing administrative burdens for businesses but supports the United Kingdom Government's position that the 'distance-purchasing' elements of the current proposal are unacceptable, as they weaken the United Kingdom's law enforcement and revenue-raising ability.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum

That the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1910), dated 22nd July 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

DEFENCE

Ordered,
	That Mr. Crispin Blunt be discharged from the Defence Committee and Richard Ottaway be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCHOOLS (FIELD WORK)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Ian Gibson: There seems to be a conspiracy among the authors and authoresses of school textbooks that publish information that is never close to being interesting. There are of course exceptions. The writers believe in formula, which dulls interesting phenomena such as climate change and questions such as why are there seasons; the mists, why; the storms, why; and why do birds know the prospects of weather change even more sharply than Penny Tranter or even Michael Fish—if I want to know the weather I watch the birds rather than the BBC or ITV? Do people really contemplate the planet we live on? Are we mystified about where we come from? The Queen is worried about climate change. Did hobbits with small brains once roam the earth? Other questions include, how did the Norfolk broads form, and how do our brains and hearts function?
	That is what school teaching, and higher education, too, should be about. It should be attractive, because we really want to know. The fault lies, I think, in our education, which is still seen by many as a chore, something that they really have to suffer.
	School trips and field trips are an important part of education. They give us the opportunity to view our heritage, to be inspired and to be instructed. We can understand where we come from and the county where we live, enabling us to feel proud. I want to talk particularly about science field trips to such places as the Norfolk broads and the Holt and Wells study centres, which are a small part of what goes on in Norfolk. What we do in our counties can help with how we handle issues on the planet.
	I have been sent evidence from the Norfolk environmental education service, and I conclude that it is struggling to advance its services to our young people. For example, it operates two outdoor education centres—the Eagle canoe club and Filby water activity centre, near Great Yarmouth. It is working with Whitlingham trust, just outside Norwich, to deliver water-based learning opportunities in the new Whitlingham country park, which has had great amounts of money from the New Opportunities Fund and Sport England's active England programme. It is being overseen by the Norwich rivers heritage trust, which is full of good folk from the region who are interested in young people going to that new outdoor centre.
	From the environmental education service, I learn that minibuses are in decline, that the centre needs more support and help and that more people are unable to fund field work opportunities at A-level. Interestingly, it says that pupils cannot afford that, but I think it is the schools are having the trouble. They are cutting back and having trouble with visits and exercises in the field.
	We are all very proud of the investment in education and the new schools, but why not involve young people in the schools in planning the new buildings so that they can feel proud about how the buildings can be constructed to deal with the environmental problems that are created? What a good way that would be to learn about environmental policies and science.
	Let me return to school visits. Outdoor centres are fine, but my experience as a governor of schools and from trips that we have set up—and, of course, as a constituency MP; people write to us and we are lobbied by the Field Studies Council, the British Ecological Society, the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and so on—is that there are many problems. Many people are frightened by health and safety legislation. I deprecate what the NASUWT has said about the problems and its encouragement to teachers not to involve themselves in vibrant courses that are part of the education process. Other unions do not feel quite as bad.
	We need to note that accidents are pretty rare. Figures I have seen from the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority show that there have been 57 deaths on school trips, 19 of which occurred during adventure activities between 1985 and 2004. The figures are not increasing, but the perception and fear of litigation remains a serious concern for teachers, provoked by organisations that ought, in my opinion, to know better. Risk can never be avoided in life, but what a chance field trips offer for students to think positively, examine risk and learn about risk and management as part of life skills.
	Bird migration, frog spawning and similar issues can be raised. Why are there four seasons, I often ask myself. Do other people ask that, too? Why not five, for goodness' sake? I cannot think what the fifth might be, but it is interesting that those are questions people may ask.
	There is a new subject called phenology, and I find that there are science centres—one at Bayfordbury in Hertfordshire—where the study of nature's calendar is very important. There they find that, for example, chestnut trees bloom sooner, and many other things happen at different times of the year—and they ask why. We cannot just say, "Climate change," to people without them asking, "What is climate change?" I think that we should be able to expect our young people—our kings and queens—to understand climate change, but they will not be able to unless they can observe, ask the questions and do the experiments during their education.
	We often live in a world of fear, and it is time to dispel that feeling. When an Education Minister, a colleague of my hon. Friend the Minister who is here tonight, told me that people do not need to see the milky way for real because they can watch it on a computer screen, I started to think of phrases such as "heathen" and "poor soul". People need to see the thing for themselves.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will know of my involvement with geology in a previous life. Does he agree that one of the great ways of exciting young people about the science of geology, and to get them to think about the planet on which they live, is to take them to some of the more exciting rock outcrops and show them some of the great fossil deposits? That cannot be done in a lab.

Ian Gibson: I absolutely concur. Although there is great stuff on the media, such as the programmes made by the BBC unit in Bristol, that is not enough. There is nothing like seeing things for oneself and asking questions. That is what inspires, and makes people want to study science and get involved in some of the mysteries of life—because we definitely have not found out everything yet, and more ought to be done about it.
	There are other factors that inhibit people from doing field trips. At key stage 2, participation in field work is rather sporadic and varying, and individual school commitment is often dependent on a specific member of staff; when that individual leaves the school there is a vacuum.
	There is a need to bring back field work in biology. It is statutory in geography but only "recommended" for science. Very little field work is undertaken at key stage 3, despite the national strategy for science, and the situation is little better at key stage 4. The skills shortage of biologists with field work experience in schools will be perpetuated unless biologists themselves provide access to specialist field courses; I compliment organisations such as the Field Studies Council, which is doing that.
	My figures say that the uptake of A-levels in biology and geography is falling nationally, and that there is difficulty in planning field courses because students will not commit themselves to A2 until they know their AS results. It is often easier not to teach ecology-based modules.
	Funding has become a major issue. It is difficult when parents decline to contribute voluntarily, as is often asked of them. As a governor, I know about that—and of course, the poorer kids do not get encouragement from home, because of financial restrictions. School budgets are often too small to remedy deficits. When the money comes through from central Government to school budgets, often that money is not used for field courses, but is diverted into other pathways—worthwhile pathways, no doubt, but we miss out on that particular type of activity. Schools withdraw from making residential visits, and that means that inclusion and fair opportunity for all in education becomes a real issue.
	There is also a lack of training to prepare teachers. This is an essential argument, I say to those weary willies who argue that health and safety is an issue. Risk management, and teachers going out of the classroom, is important both for initial teacher training, when people have the opportunity to study field sciences, and for serving teachers. There is a need for all key stage 2 teachers and all science specialists at key stage 3 and above to receive some training during ITT.
	Serving teachers are doing a wonderful job in the classroom—but gosh, we could do a lot more in their training to make them want to get out there and see the world as it really is, to understand the patterns of life and impart them, and to instruct young people and give them the enthusiasm that takes them onwards. We have a history of academic field work in our education system; it is a learning mechanism and helps personal development. We want to ensure that quality can be delivered in an atmosphere of safety, allowing all pupils the opportunity, and the right, to such experience. I say that it should be for the many, not the few—a phrase that will be familiar to those who are present.
	I do not think that the answer that I often get from my schools about sponsorship of the school pond by a local industry is enough. Of course, that is fine, but I want to see ring-fenced moneys to ensure that our young people are sent out there to look at things in a safe environment. In that way, we will solve many of the problems that everybody talks about, holding their hands up and saying, "Why don't young people want to do these interesting subjects?" If we do not give them the chance to go out, see things and ask the questions, and if we do not have a curriculum that encourages them to do so, is it any wonder?

Stephen Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this important debate, which is also timely, considering that this subject has been under consideration by the Select Committee on Education and Skills.
	Shortly before the summer recess, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out our Department's five-year strategy for children and learners. As part of that strategy, we place great emphasis on the challenge for every school to be an environmentally sustainable school with a good plan for school transport encouraging walking and cycling, an active and effective recycling policy and a school garden or other opportunities for children to explore the natural world. We also say in our challenge for secondary schools that we want to widen opportunities beyond the classroom. Those opportunities often provide some of the most memorable experiences at school, such as being involved in the school trip or drama production, or playing in the school team.
	I would like to place tonight's debate very much in the context of those commitments in the five-year strategy. There is a relevance across the curriculum, as I think my hon. Friend set out powerfully in his speech, in science, geography, personal social and health education and citizenship. There is an enormous challenge, of which he reminded the House, to make science in the curriculum exciting and attractive for children and young people throughout their school days.
	The 10-year science and innovation framework sets out the Government's ambition, and in particular, the contribution to be made to economic growth and public services by science. Clearly, science education is absolutely central. My hon. Friend referred to the national network of science learning centres for teachers and technicians. There is a major £51 million partnership between the Government and the Wellcome Trust to enable those centres to be established and to act as a focal point for the profession, pulling together regional resources to help improve science teaching and learning. The first three regional centres opened their doors on 1 October this year, with others already offering courses on other sites in the interim, and all nine due to be open at the beginning of the next school year, next September.
	One aspect of the work of those centres is enabling young people to learn about and use field work, to manage interesting experiments in the laboratory and to have confidence to use a range of strategies together with in-depth subject knowledge. We have funded both the Association for Science Education and the Geographical Association to develop training courses that will increase teacher skills and confidence in leading outdoor learning. That will be achieved through some of the science learning centres starting next year.
	Clearly, freeing up teachers to teach is at the heart of the work force reform changes in our schools. The extra role for support staff is very important and can contribute to the encouragement and organisation of outdoor activities. Such staff can contribute by acting as local environmental volunteers, for example, or providing cover for a teacher who is out on field work, away from school.
	In the 10-year science and innovation framework, we are committed to training a new cadre of higher level teaching assistants so that every secondary school in England can recruit at least one by 2007–08. Of course that is not enough. We also need to recruit more science teachers to enable the work to continue into the longer term.
	My hon. Friend rightly reminded the House of the importance of involving children and young people in these areas. He referred in particular to the challenge of building new schools and involving young people in some of those decisions from an early stage. We have an ideal opportunity to do that with the "Building Schools for the Future" programme, which aims to rebuild or refurbish all our secondary schools over a 15-year period. As a Government we must rise to the challenge of ensuring that children and young people in our schools and in our communities are part of those decisions right from the beginning.
	Last year we published, "Excellence and Enjoyment", our strategy for primary schools. That strategy encourages a rich and exciting curriculum, with better use of resources and opportunities in and beyond the classroom, to make learning more flexible and imaginative. Outdoor learning is central to the agenda of "Excellence and Enjoyment". I am pleased at the welcome that the document received not only in education, but in terms of the environment and outdoor learning. Getting children out of the classroom to explore the natural world is a powerful way of making science and the broader curriculum come alive. I tread with care when I disagree with my unnamed ministerial colleague whom my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. I have no doubt that there can be no substitute for the excitement of outdoor learning and seeing the natural world with one's own eyes.
	There is an exciting joint project between science learning centres and the Woodland Trust to tie in with the BBC's spring theme. Each of the regional centres is providing training for primary school teachers on how the arrival of spring can be measured by identifying trees in bud and the appearance of insects. Schools will be able to record their results on the Nature Detectives website as part of a national experiment. These are projects that we want to encourage, so that we can see the flowering of outdoor learning and field work, about which my hon. Friend rightly spoke.
	I turn to the important topic that my hon. Friend mentioned—some of the barriers that exist or are perceived to exist to outdoor learning. It is important that we build the case for such learning. I concur with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Field Studies Council for the work that it does. The study that it published earlier this year provides us with substantial evidence that field work effectively planned, well managed and well taught can offer learners opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills in ways that add value to the everyday educational experience in the classroom.
	Our own programme, "Growing Schools", is funding further research, including in-depth case studies at outdoor sites, and investigating teaching and learning processes, learning outcomes and wider benefits. We are also conducting action research with a group of teachers, field centre staff and farm educators to trial teaching and evaluation strategies. That will report in April next year.
	I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of school trips. I recognise that there are barriers to schools doing field work. There are practical issues and others that are less tangible. I am keen to send out the message that we want to help and support teachers in realising that by following good practice, we can ensure that visits are as safe as possible, and we can be confident that unfair accusations against teachers and other staff can be swiftly dismissed. Our own investigations through "Growing Schools" show that there is a generally shared view of the barriers to schools undertaking learning outside the classroom. We want to work with everyone—the teacher unions, the head teacher associations, the other unions, the "Growing Schools" national advisory group and the whole range of national organisations—to make sure we get this right. I would also like to put on record my thanks to the subject associations, especially those involved with geography and science, for the important role that they are playing in supporting us in developing this important work.
	We have produced practical and well-received guidance on health and safety, with five booklets aimed at specific target audiences for local education authorities, for schools and for group leaders, and these are available on our teachernet website. We are doing all that we can to manage the risks. There are risks—my hon. Friend is right—but it is possible for the current system to be harnessed in the way that he described to the educational benefit of children and young people in our schools.
	Some people are also keen on the idea of a statutory entitlement to a set number of days of outdoor learning and I can see some attractions in that sort of approach. What we want to do, and what we are doing as a Department, is to work closely with a wide group of partners towards a common vision. A number of our partner organisations have put to us the idea of an outdoor learning manifesto and I am keen to explore that further.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government and for making a powerful case this evening for the importance of field work in science, in geography and throughout the school curriculum at every stage. I join with him in saying that I think there is a continued and, I hope, growing role for that excellent work in the outdoor classroom.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.